M.N.BHANDARI,J. - (1.) By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the sealing of the building on 2nd August, 2017. It is pursuant to the notice earlier served under Section 32 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (for short "the Act of 1982") and followed by notice under Section 34A of the Act of 1982.
(2.) Learned counsel submits that a notice was served on the owner of the building and not on the petitioner. They are running a clinic within the permissible limit yet it has been sealed. A reference of the Jaipur Development Authority (Region Building) Bye-Laws, 2010 (for short "the Bye-Laws of 2010") has been given where use of residential area to the extent to 25% or 100 square metres, whichever is lesser has been permitted for professional purpose. The petitioner is running a Dental Clinic thus it cannot be said to be a commercial activity. They are using less than 25% of the residential area for the clinic thus even the use is saved by the Bye-Laws of 2010. A reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Noida and Anr. And Dr. Anupama Bisaria and Ors. v. Mange Ram Sharma (D) through L.Rs. and Ors., reported in AIR 2012 SC 2115 has been given where the clinic simplicitor is permitted in the residence but a Doctor is not permitted to run the Polyclinic or Nursing Home in the garb of a clinic. In view of the judgment (supra) also, the sealing of the building should be interfered by this court.
(3.) It is also submitted that as per Section 32 of the Act of 1982, a prior notice is required to be given to the occupier. In the instant case, no such notice was given to the petitioner but to the owner of the building who may be even petitioner's father. Thus it has affected the petitioner. Hence, sealing of the building deserves to be interfered by this court even on the ground aforesaid.;