1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 393 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4738 OF 2008 (Gajanan Ramraoji Ambagovind and others .v. Corporation of the City of Nagpur & others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri M.I. Khan, Advocate for the appellants. Shri S.K. Mishra, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 11TH DECEMBER, 2008 Heard. A notice under Section 289(1) for demolition of the dilapidated structure was issued to the appellants. The appellants challenged it before this Court. With the consent of the appellants, the expert committee was constituted which inspected the spot in presence of the appellants/petitioners and submitted its report. Copy of the report admittedly was given to the petitioners. The petitioners were also given an opportunity to make representation in relation to the report and thereafter the orders have been passed. Thus the order is based on the material which is available on record and in relation to the report the petitioners had every opportunity to make representation. 2 It is now settled law that the Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not examine the merit of the decision. The Court primarily concerns with the process adopted in decision making. The process adopted in decision making is in consonance with the principles of natural justice and law. Whether the structure is in dilapidated condition or not is a matter to be considered by experts. This Court cannot go into the matter. Taking overall view of the matter, we find nothing wrong in the order impugned in the LPA. The LPA is, therefore, rejected. At the request of the appellants, it is directed that the demolition of the premises be not carried out for the period of two weeks from today at the risks of the appellants. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.