KPP -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 104 OF 2011 New Sujata Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. ... Petitioner vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay and others ... Respondents Mr. Ajit S. Karwande for the petitioner. Ms. K.R. Punjabi for the respondent-corporation. Mr. Zal Andhyarjuna, Ms. Manorama Mohanty with Mr. Gunjan Shah, instructed by M/s. S.K. Srivastav & Co., for respondent Nos. 4 and 6. Ms. S. Shreedharan, AGP, for respondent Nos. 7 and 8. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & A.A. SAYED , JJ. DATE: FEBRUARY 03, 2011. P.C. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondent-Municipal Corporation should take appropriate steps against the concerned respondents who have carried out illegal construction in violation of the Rules and Regulations. The grievance of the petitioner is regarding construction of internal walls and renovation of flat Nos. 2, 3, 12 and 13 by respondent Nos. 4 and 6. It is prayed in the petition that appropriate action be taken by the Corporation in connection with the said construction and also prayed that respondent Nos. 4 and 6 may be restrained from changing the premises from residential to commercial. KPP -2- 2. It is required to be noted that the Corporation has already initiated action by issuing notice under Section 53 (1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (“the said Act) and the said proceedings are pending with the Corporation. The concerned respondents have also furnished their replies. It seems that respondent No.6 has filed a suit in the City Civil Court at Mumbai challenging the notice issued under Section 51 (1) of the said Act wherein ad-interim relief is granted by the City Civil Court. In our view, this Court is not required to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India firstly because a suit is already filed by respondent No.6 before the City Civil Court and secondly the Corporation has already initiated proceedings by issuing notice to the concerned respondents. Individual disputes between the petitioner and the concerned respondents cannot be entertained by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India especially when disputed questions are raised. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation states that the Corporation will act in accordance with law. In view of the same, this petition is now not required to be entertained further. 3. Subject to what is stated above, the petition is rejected. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. A.A. SAYED, J.