- (1.) This petition was filed on 19-5-2017 challenging the show cause notice dated 16-6-2015 after a delay of about 2 years. On the matter coming up before the court on 13-6-2017, during summer vacation, the counsel for the petitioner fairly informed the Vacation Judge that in the meantime on 9-6-2017 a final order on show cause notice dated 16-6-2015 had been passed. The court however, despite the said order dated 9-6-2017 not being under challenge in writ petition, in equity protected the petitioner from operation of the order dated 9-6-2017 till 12-7-2017. The said interim order dated 13-6-2017 was continued on 12-7-2017 and 26-7-2017. Mr. S.K. Bansal, appearing on behalf of Mr.Saket Pareek, counsel for the Ajmer Development Authority, at the outset pointed out that neither the order dated 9-6-2017 is under challenge in the petition nor has been placed on record of the petition. Hence neither can the said order be quashed nor stayed. He submitted that in any event the order dated 9-6-2017 is appealable under Section 194(12) of the Rajasthan Municipalites Act, 2012 (hereinafter 'the Act of 2009'). The petitioner thus has an alternative remedy and therefore this court should not interfere. Further, the petition challenging the show cause notice dated 16-6-2015 has in any event in the circumstances become infructuous with the passing of the final order dated 9-6-2017. Mr. Kapil Mathur, counsel for the petitioner very fairly admitted that indeed the order dated 9-6-2017 passed by the Dy. Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Ajmer is appealable under Section 194(12) of the Act of 2009 and in fact is not impugned in this petition. He however submitted that the said order dated 9-6-2017 is peremptory in nature, inasmuch as it directs the petitioner to vacate the disputed premises purportedly falling in a No Construction Zone within 48 hours, failing which the property in issue would be seized and/ or demolished by the Nagar Nigam Ajmer. Mr. Kapil Mathur submitted that property in dispute is residential in nature and albeit the order dated 9-6-2017 is appealable, time for filing an appeal as provided for under Section 194(12) of the Act of 2009 ought to have been granted to the petitioner, lest the remedy of the statutory appeal be rendered a mere formality. It was pointed out that Section 194(12) of the Act of 2009 provides for filing an appeal within 30 days, and that remedy of appeal cannot be negated by the peremptory action of the Nagar Nigam, prior to the lapsing of the period of limitation. Heard. Considered. Mr. Kapil Mathur, counsel for the petitioner is indeed right in submitting that the remedy of appeal against the order dated 9-6- 2017 could be availed by the petitioner within thirty days of its passing and consequently the Nagar Nigam Ajmer could not have sought to take away the petitioner's right of an appeal by seeking to peremptorily demolish the petitioner's property within 48 hours of the order having been passed. Consequently, even while I am disinclined to interfere in the petition as laid for the reason that the show cause notice dated 16-6- 2015 has already fructified into the final order dated 9-6-2017 passed by the Dy. Commissioner Nagar Nigam Ajmer, the petitioner in the facts of the case is entitled to some interim protection in the facts of the case. The petitioner shall be free to file an appeal under Section 194(12) of the Act of 2009 against the order dated 9-6- 2017. No steps however be taken against the petitioner's property pursuant to order dated 9-6-2017, till thirty days lapsing therefrom. For computation of the period of limitation of thirty days from 9-6- 2017, for the reason that the petition has remained pending before this court from 9-6-2017 to 31-7-2017, this period--both days inclusive--be excluded for the purpose of limitation. The petitioner shall be free to file an appeal under Section 194(12) of the Act of 2009 against the order dated 9-6-2017. And it is only after thirty days from today, computed in terms detailed above, the respondent Nagar Nigam Ajmer shall be free to take any coercive steps against the petitioner and/ or the property in dispute. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed. Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary. ;