ssp 1 WP(L) 25 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.25 OF 2011 Shivdayal Kanakmal Maheshwari .....Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.A.M.Saraogi, for the petitioner. Ms.Shobha Ajeet Kumar, for the respondent-Corporation. Ms.Geeta Shastri, AGP, for the respondent-State. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE: 14th FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. : 1. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.3, who is Local MLA, is trying to make construction of a road, qua which petitioner has right to access and which according to the petitioner, is in his possession. It is required to be noted that respondent No.3 is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. If somebody is trying to disturb the possession of the petitioner, the appropriate remedy would be to file a civil suit. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.3 is making the construction of road by making funds available through his MLA Fund and he has joined in the petition in his private capacity. Even if that be so, in our view, civil suit would be the ssp 2 WP(L) 25 of 2011 appropriate remedy by which respondent No.3 can be restrained or injuncted from carrying out the construction of road. Such disputed question of facts cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when respondent No.3 is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 3. In view of what is stated above, the writ petition is disposed of. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits in any manner. ( A.A.SAYED, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )