Office of Municipal Council

Hanumangarh- Rajasthan
No. Date:
15.12.2021
Additional Advocate General,
Jodhpur
Factual Report
S. B. Civil Writ Petition no. 16675/2021
Respected Sir,
The Factual Report on behalf Respondents in the S.B. Civil Writ Petition no.
16675/2021 pending before the Hon’ble High Court Jodhpur is as follows:

1. The content of Para 1 is a matter of fact and warrants no reply.

2. The facts drawn in Para 2 are erroneous and misconceived as the
impugned acts and orders passed by the Respondents 1 to 4 are legally
sound, perfectly tenable and suffers no infirmities in terms of want of
jurisdiction or otherwise, as alleged by the Petitioners, thus do not stand
in derogation of principles of natural justice. Specific allegations are
countered as thus:
2.1Contentions raised by the Petitioners with respect to other
Respondent landlords carrying out eviction proceedings under Rent
Control Act, 2001 do not pertain to Respondent no. 1 to 4 and thus
does not require any comment.
2.2The collusion alleged by the Petitioners against the Respondents is
vehemently denied.
2.3Respondent no. 4 is duly empowered to take required action under
S. 133 of Cr. P.C. Pursuant to an application filed by Sh. Sandeep
Kumar and others against Sh. Prem Prakash and others,
Respondent no. 4 took cognizance of the issues laid out in the
 application vide its order dated 23.07.2021. Subsequently, upon the
applications filed by some Petitioners, the Petitioners were duly
impleaded as parties to the proceedings under S. 133 Cr. P.C.
(Annexure 7C of the Petition)
2.4However, the Petitioners of the present case after getting impleaded
in proceedings under S. 133 Cr. P.C. filed for Revision under S.
397 Cr.P.C. which is still pending before the Hon’ble Sessions
Court. (Annexure 9 of the Petition)
2.5Respondent no. 2- the District Collector of Hanumangarh District is
the Chairman of ‘Removal of Public Grievance Committee-cum-
Vigilance Committee’ and has passed the directions dated
16.11.2021 on the basis of resolution dated 08.11.2021 (Annexure
11 of the Petition) which are well within its powers and
jurisdiction.
2.6Respondent No. 3- the Municipal Council of Hanumangarh had
complied with the provisions under S. 243(2) of the Rajasthan
Municipalities’ Act, 2009 and had sent notice dated 13.07.2021
(Annexure R-1) to the owners of the subject matter properties,
intimating to them the imminent need of demolition due to the
ruinous state of the subject matter properties which are likely to
fall.
3. The content of Para 3 is not related to Respondents no. 1 to 4.
4. The content of Para 4 and its sub- paras are not related to Respondents
no. 1 to 4.
5. The content of Para 5 is not related to Respondents no. 1 to 4.
6. The Petitioners have falsely stated that the occupied shops in question are
in perfect state. It is of public knowledge that the said shops in question
are 45-50 years old and are in a dangerously dilapidated state, thus
causing imminent threat to the occupiers as well as passers-by. These
 shops in question are situated near Railway station, Hanumangarh as well
as right across Gurudwara Singh Sabha, and witnesses congested crowd
maximum of the time. The assertions of the Petitioners are contradicted
by multiple reports sent in by the PWD Department dated 25.08.2021
(Annexure R-2) as well as Municipal Council dated 02.07.2021 after due
inspection of the property which asserts that the said buildings are in
dangerously dilapidated state and warrants immediate action.
7. In para 7, the Petitioners have illegitimately brought the already sub
judice issue of proceedings under S. 133 Cr.P.C. which are pending in
revision before Hon’ble Sessions Court, Hanumangarh. The said issue is
not the bone of contention in the present writ petition.
8. The content of Para 8 is a matter of fact and thus does not warrant any
reply.
9. The content of Para 9 is rejected and only partially accepted.
9.1The Contentions raised by Petitioners are factually incorrect and
made with a view to mislead this Court. It has been falsely asserted
that the Respondent no. 2 received replies from Respondent no. 3
& 4 (both), wherein it was commonly stated that ‘the dispute is
pending before the concerned court of law, thus, it is not possible
to do any expected things.’ However, no such reply as sent by
Respondent no. 3 to Respondent no. 2.
9.2 The content of para 9 are partially accepted only to the extent that
the District Collector, being the chairman of Grievance Redressal
cum Vigilance Committee initiated processes and issued notices to
concerned department to submit report
10.Para 10:
10.1 The order dated 16.11.2021 (Annexure 11 of the Petition) passed
by Respondent no. 2- the District Collector of Hanumangarh
District, in the capacity of Chairman of ‘Removal of Public
 Grievance Committee-cum-Vigilance Committee’ is perfectly
tenable order and suffers no infirmities in terms of want of
jurisdiction or otherwise, as alleged by the Petitioners.
10.2 That the ‘Removal of Public Grievance Committee-cum-
Vigilance Committee’ is a state sanctioned instrumentality,
constituted under the Removal of Public Grievance Department,
which was established in 1971. It was first constituted with the
assent of the Hon’ble Governor, brought into effect vide
notification no. F.7(17)O&M/Gr.V/73 dated 09th/ 12th March,
1973 (Annexure R-4), issued by the Department of Personnel,
Government of Rajasthan. Thereafter the constitution of the
Committee was amended several times after its first constitution
via several notifications/circulars issued by the concerned
department.
10.3 The dynamic nature of the societal needs and effective execution
the State’s endeavor of good governance, the powers and
functions of the Committee also evolved over the period of time.
Significantly, through the meeting of a Committee constituted
vide Order no. F.7(33)O&M/Gr.V/74 dated 15.03.1975, certain
amendments were sanctioned on 09.01.1980 and inter alia, the
jurisdiction of the Removal of Public Grievance Department
(R.P.G. Department) was extended over the ‘Local Bodies such
as Municipal Boards, Councils and Corporations.’ (Annexure R-
5 para 8)
10.4 The new notification/circular dated 20.10.1983 (Annexure R-6),
bearing the assent of the Hon’ble Governor of the State, the
powers of the Committee headed by the District Collector were
expanded to the effect that the functions of the Committee will
also take into its sweep the power of investigation into the
 allegations of the delay in disposing the Public Grievances
pertaining to different departments.
10.5 The subsequent notification/ circular dated 20.10.1983
(Annexure R-6) read alongside the previous relevant
amendments and departmental decisions as mentioned above, it
is a settled principle that the power of the Chairman of the
‘Removal of Public Grievance Committee-cum-Vigilance
Committee’ i.e. the District Collector extends to expedite/resolve
the delay in disposal of public grievances lodged against the
local bodies such as Municipal Council. jkT; ljdkj ds dkfeZd ,oa
iz'kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx ds i=kad i-8¼2½iz-lq-@83 fnukad 20-
10-83 ds }kjk izR;sd ftys esa ftyk tu vfHk;ksx ,oa lrdZrk lfefr ds
xBu dh Lohd`fr iznku djrs gq, bl lfefr esa v|ksgLrk{kjdrkZ dks
v/;{k fu;qDr fd;k x;k gSA mDr vkns'k ds fcUnq la[;k 4 ds vuqlkj
bl lfefr ds fuEu d`R; crk;s x;s gS] Hkz"Vkpkj vkSj tu
vfHk;ksxksa tSls fo|qr dusD'kuksa] dh eatwjh esa vkSj fo|qr
forj.k esa foyEc] vkijkf/kd ekeyksa ds iathdj.k rFkk muds
vUosa"k.k] iqfyl LVs'kuksa ds ekeyksa dks jftLVj ugha djus]
ukekUrjdj.kksa o ty forj.k esa vfu;ferkvksa] vUosa"k.k
izkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk okguksa ds vf/kdkf/kd nq:i;ksx vkSj
fofHkUu foHkkxksa }kjk Bsds nsus esa vkSj muds fu"iknu esa
vfu;ferkvksa] efgykvksa ij T;knkfr;ksa vko';d oLrqvksa ds iznk;
vkSj forj.k rFkk fofHkUu foHkkxksa }kjk _.k eatwj fd;s tkus
vkSj mlds forj.k esa vfu;feRrkvksa ls lacaf/kr f'kdk;rksa ds
laca/k esa dk;Zokgh djukA mi;qZDr d`R; lwph lEiw.kZ ugha
gSA vr% lfefr Lofoosdkuqlkj] ,sls leLr vfHk;ksxksa dh tkap
iM+rky dj ldsxh ftuesa Hkz"Vkpkj] nqjkpj.k vkSj fofHkUu
foHkkxksa }kjk leLr tu vfHk;ksxksa ds laca/k esa dk;Zokgh
 fd;s tkus vkSj mUgsa fuiVkus esa foyEc vkfyIr gksA fcUnq
la[;k 05 esa Hkh lfefr ds d`R; crk;s x;s gSA
10.6 Owing to the aforementioned reasons, it cannot be gainsaid that
in the present case as well, the aforesaid principles applies
squarely and the Respondent no. 2, in his order dated 16.11.2021
has not exercised his powers exceeding his jurisdiction but in
fact has contained himself well within the distinctly demarcated
contours of his powers and functions as illustrated and
established by the R.P.G. Department vide numerous
notifications/circulars issued from time to time.
10.7 The Petitioners have contemptuously alleged that the
Respondent no. 2, through the said Committee has acted beyond
jurisdiction. However, no official notification/ circular/ order or
otherwise has been cited and relied upon by the Petitioners and
have thus manufactured the restrictions and limited jurisdiction
of the Respondent no. 2/ Committee only in the thin air.
10.8 The Petitioners have miserably failed in establishing a prima
facie good case in their favor which has prompted them to
premise the entire writ petition on conjectures and surmises,
without expositing and substantiating their frivolous arguments
with any legal rationale or administrative orders.
10.9 It is relevant to mention here that the Committee/ Respondent
no. 2 received a written complaint by Sh. Ramesh Kumar dated
22.102021, highlighting the compromised and dilapidated state
of certain establishments at Main Market, in front of Gurudwara
Sh. Singh Sabha which were alleged to be posing a legitimate
threat to the life and well-being as well as safety and security of
the occupants. The Complainant Sh. Ramesh Kumar had stated
that several correspondences were made with the Municipal
 Council, Hanumangarh yet no constructive steps were taken in
this regard by the relevant administrative departments. Thus, the
Complainant had implored the Respondent no.2, by registering
his complaint in the for of public grievance, to take requisite
actions in the interest of public welfare and safety.
Consequently, the said grievance was taken up by the
Committee/ Respondent no. 2 in the meeting which took place
on 08.11.2021
10.10 Kind attention of this Hon’ble Court may be drawn towards
the resolution passed by the Committee/ Respondent no. 2, dated
16.11.2021 wherein the directions were only issued after due
deliberation and satisfactorily taking into account the response
received from Municipal Council/ Respondent no. 3 stating their
compliance of the requisite provisions of Municipality Act,
2009. Pursuantly, the recommendatory directions were issued by
the Respondent no. 2 to take required actions in accordance with
the rules and regulations with a view to jettison the grievance
registered by Sh. Ramesh Kumar.
10.11 That the directions passed by Respondent no. 2 vide
resolution dated 16.11.2021 are well within the confines of the
powers and administrative functions accorded to him vide
numerous notifications/ circulars passed by R.P.G. Department.
At the same time, the Petitioners have failed to support their
frivolous grounds of want of jurisdiction with any cogent set of
evidence.
10.12 That the Respondent no. 2 is not obliged by any
rules/regulations/requirements to send a show cause notice to the
parties in case of acting upon a complaint and issuing directions
 to the concerned department with a view to redress the complaint
received.
10.13 That the actions of Respondent no. 2 are lawful and have
been carried out legally. The dispute raised by the Petitioners
against other respondents is a private matter which must not
have any adverse effect on the present case.
11.That the content of Para 11 is a matter of fact thus warrants no reply.
12. Reply to the grounds:
A. Response to contentions raised in Ground A are discussed in detail
in para 10 of this factual report.
B. The reports sent by PWD and Municipal Council are not
manipulative or refutable. The reports were sent only after due
inspection by the experts (Engineer) from the respective
department. There is no evidence whatsoever produced by the
Petitioner to show how the reports are bad in law or manipulative.
o The contention of the Petitioner against Respondent no. 3 qua
non compliance of the statutory provision of S. 243 of MCD is
factually incorrect, made only to mislead the Court and obtain
favourable relief.

o By the power vested in the Municipal Corporation of

Hanumangarh by virtue of S. 243(2) of Rajasthan
Municipalities Act, 2009, the Respondent no. 3, duly
exercised its powers and preferred to send a notice to the
owners of the property vide letter no 6713, dated 13.07.2021,
intimating to them the imminent need of demolition due to
the ruinous state of the subject matter buildings which are
likely to fall and therefore requiring them forthwith to take
down, secure or repair such building or thing affixed thereon,
 as the case shall require. The aforementioned provision also
enables Respondent no 3 to take relevant actions by itself to
safeguard the interests of the owner, occupier, the
neighbouring buildings, any occupier thereof or any
passenger.
o Therefore, effecting the explicit provisions of the Rajasthan
Municipalities Act, 2009 the Respondent no. 3 sent a notice
to the other respondents, granting them 7 days time to
undertake required action, with the clear indication that in
case the notices fails to comply with the notice, the
Respondent no. 3 shall appropriate actions itself as prescribed
by law. Thus the contention of the Petitioner regarding non-
compliance of notice under S. 243 is factually incorrect.
o The photographs attached by the Petitioners are extremely
selective and misleading. To assist the court for proper
adjudication, the Respondents are also attaching relevant
photographs of the property which will signify for certainty
that there is an imminent need of taking immediate action.
(Annexure R-3)
o The Latter part of Ground B is discussed in detail in Para 10
of the Factual Report.

C. The former part of Ground C does not relate to Respondents. However,

the issues mentioned in the latter part has been already discussed above.
D. The contention related to tenancy, grounds of eviction, intention of the
landlords etc. does not have any bearing on the proceedings initiated by
the respondent authority. The directions issue by the Respondent no. 2, as
the chairman of the Committee does not decides on or even adversely
affect the Tenancy rights of the Petitioners. The Respondents are not
 assuming the powers of a civil court but in fact are operating within the
powers accorded to them as per relevant provision which do not run in
derogation with the court proceedings.
E. The issue of Tenancy is not related to the Respondents. Moreover, the
Petitioners have admitted in Ground B that the provision under S. 243 has
not been exercised. However, later on in Ground E, the Petitioners
contend that the respondents does not have any jurisdiction to invoke S.
243 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. In fact, Respondent no. 3
had sent a notice dated 13.07.2021 to the owners of the property while
exercising such power under S. 243 (2) of Rajasthan Municipalities Act,
2009 for intimating to them the imminent need of demolition due to the
ruinous state of the subject matter buildings which are likely to fall and
therefore requiring them forthwith to take down, secure or repair such
building or thing affixed thereon, as the case shall require.

(Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009- S. 243. Dangerous buildings.- (2) The

Municipality shall also cause notice in writing to be given to the owner or
occupier, requiring such owner or occupier forthwith to take down, secure or
repair such building or thing affixed thereon, as the case shall require, and if
such owner or occupier does not begin to repair, take down or secure such
building or thing within three days, and in case of emergency, immediately after
the service of such notice and complete such work with due diligence, the
Municipality shall cause all or so much of such building or thing, as it shall
think necessary, to be taken down, repaired or otherwise secured.

* Power of Respondent No. 3 to take preventive measures

 By a bare perusal of clause (1) of S. 243, it is abundantly clear
that Respondent no. 3, being the Municipal Council of
 Hanumangarh District are empowered by the Rajasthan
Municipalities Act, 2009 to take immediate preventive action
such as installing a proper hoarding or fence to be put up for
the protection of passenger as against the buildings which the
municipality deems to be in a ruinous state or to be likely to
fall or to be in any other way dangerous to any inhabitant
of such building or of any neighbouring building, or to any
occupier thereof or to passengers.

(Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 243. Dangerous buildings.- (1) If any

building or anything affixed thereon be deemed by the Municipality to be in
a ruinous state or to be likely to fall or to be in any other way dangerous to
any inhabitant of such building or of any neighbouring building, or to any
occupier thereof or to passengers, the Municipality shall immediately, if it
appears to it to be necessary, cause a proper hoarding or fence to be put up
for the protection of passengers. All expenses incurred by the Municipality
under this sub-section shall be paid by the owner or occupier of such
building and shall be recoverable in the same manner as an amount claimed
on account of any tax recoverable under this Act.)

 That in the present facts of the case as well, post inaction by the
owners of the buildings after receiving due notice under S. 243
of the act, the Respondent no. 3 is empowered by the law to
undertake the requested actions in the notice all by itself or
otherwise take preventive actions as mentioned before.
 Therefore, may it be emphasised that in the present case as well,
the Respondent no. 3 are not barred to take preventive actions
which are not in the form of demolition or alterations in the
building structure. Hence, may it be humbly requested before
this court that Respondent no. 3 be allowed to take requisite
 action with a view to avert potential damage to public well-
being arising out of the currently dangerous and ruinous status of
the said buildings.
F. With respect to ground F:
o The Petitioners have gravely erred in anointing the mala fide
against the respondents without even establishing any prima
facie case in their favor and obtaining the order of stay on the
operation of impugned order by misleading this Hon’ble Court
against the Respondents. May it be submitted that the
Respondents consist of State government as well as its
functionaries who are cooperatively working to deliver upon
their bounden duty of public service and good governance by
efficiently acting upon the public grievances registered by the
citizens of the state as well as promptly take action on them with
a view to serve the recourse of the grievance expeditiously.
o The Petitioners have wickedly tried to project these government
instrumentalities interested in private disputes and thus
unwarrantedly favoring certain private parties. The Respondents
take strong objection to such illegitimate aspersions cast against
their credibility. May it be vehemently stated that the impugned
order was passed in accordance of the rules and regulation and in
fact it was a speaking order, premised on the cogent information
rendered to it by the Municipal Council, Hanumangarh. The
directives issued therein were also issued in the public interest
after observing the importance of the issue, the imminent risk
involved and the delayed actions of the Municipal Council to
eradicate the risk.
o The catalogue of previous litigations cited by the Petitioners are
private in nature, relief sought therein are in personnam and
 therefore are extraneously inconsequential to the present cause
of action. The direction issued by Respondent no. 2 vide the
impugned order has been made by exercising his unfettered
powers as the chairman of the ‘Removal of Public Grievance
Committee-cum-Vigilance Committee’ which remain
unprejudiced by the private civil litigation pertaining to the title,
tenancy, etc between the private parties as well as other
recourses opted by the Petitioner in their individual capacities.
The main objective of the Committee/ Respondent no. 2 remains
the same i.e. alleviation of the public grievance and safeguard
the public security and safety, for which the directed issued by
him in the impugned orders stands firm on the threshold of
legality.

****
In view of the aforementioned factual report, it is humbly requested that while
presenting the side of respondent 3 before the Hon'ble Court, kindly request for
obtaining an order that till the final decision of the said petition, the Municipal
Council, Hanumangarh may be allowed to make appropriate arrangements for
the safety of passers-by from the shops in question, by erecting hoardings and
fences in accordance of the provisions of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009.