IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.565 OF 2004 PETITION NO.565 OF 2004 PETITION NO.565 OF 2004 Chandrakant Mangaonkar ........Petitioner Vs. Union of India & Ors. .....Respondents Mr. R.D.Bhat for the petitioner. Mr. R.M.Sawant, G.P. for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. R.V. Paranjpe for Respondent No.4. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: F.I. REBELLO & S.P.KUKDAY, JJ. F.I. REBELLO & S.P.KUKDAY, JJ. F.I. REBELLO & S.P.KUKDAY, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 23rd March, 2005 : 23rd March, 2005 : 23rd March, 2005 P.C. P.C. P.C. . A similar issue arose in Writ Petition NO.2165 of 2001 which petition has been disposed of by us by order dated 14th March, 2005. 2. Mr. Bhat for the petitioner points out that the permissions were taken by playing fraud on the authorities. We have perused the reliefs. We find that prayer clauses (b) and (c) as sought for by the petitioner are purely in the matter of seeking private reliefs. Considering that it will not be possible to entertain this petition at the instance of the petitioner who is seeking relief for himself. In view of that matter no interference called for. 3. We make it clear that in the matter of issue of permission we have not gone into the merits of that issue. All that we have done, on the facts of the present case is to refuse to exercise our extra ordinary jurisdiction. If the petitioner has any right based on his contention that the settlement has not been implemented it is for him to move the appropriate forum if he is so entitled to in law. (F.I. (F.I. (F.I. REBELLO, J.) REBELLO, J.) REBELLO, J.) (S.P. (S.P. (S.P. KUKDAY, J.) KUKDAY, J.) KUKDAY, J.)