IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2383/2011 VITTHALRAO RAGIT ..VS.. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ORS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.S.Nagpure adv for petitioner CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & P.B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : JULY 22, 2011. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to take steps for demolishing the illegal structure erected by the respondent no.5 and remove the unauthorized construction and encroachment. The petitioner seeks the aforesaid relief on the ground that the property in the concerned locality is owned by the petitioner’s family member and the respondent no.5 has encroached upon the land belonging to the Municipal Council and that is causing inconvenience to the petitioner. We find that the petitioner has not filed the petition in public interest. The issue involved in this case can as well be agitated by filing a civil suit. The relief sought by the petitioner need not be granted in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The judgment reported in (2006) 5 AIR Bombay LR Page 328 and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE SMP