:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2326 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 2326 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 2326 OF 2008 Deepak K. Nagpal ..Petitioner versus Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority ..Respondents Mr. Kevic Setalwad i/b. Khilnani & Co. for the Petitioner. Ms. Kiran Bagalia for the Respondents. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE & CORAM : S. A. BOBDE & CORAM : S. A. BOBDE & Smt. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. Smt. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. Smt. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. DATE : 1ST DECEMBER, 2008. DATE : 1ST DECEMBER, 2008. DATE : 1ST DECEMBER, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the Order of the MMRDA dated 25.9.2008 preventing him from carrying out unauthorised construction in the balance portion of galas in his possession at site. 3. It appears that the petitioner is occupying some galas at a site which is in a portion meant for widening Andheri Ghatkopar Link Road. It is not disputed that he has been allotted alternate :2: accommodation at the Mulund Mall, which is stated in the order itself. On this site he has been prevented from carrying out unauthorised construction in the portion of galas which remained in his possession. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner ought to be allowed to carry out the said construction which is meant for securing the premises in the same manner as others who have been permitted to carry out same construction. 5. We find from the record that there is no evidence whatsoever to show that anybody has been permitted to carry out any construction. There is not even a statement in the petition that the petitioner or any person in the neighbourhood has been authorised to carry out any construction. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there should be an injunction restraining the respondents from acting on the notice for demolition dated 10.10.2008. We are not inclined to grant any such relief in view of the fact that there is a statement in the notice that the structure is "in very dangerous condition" and :3: may collapse at any time and cause casualties. 7. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner has admittedly been granted alternate accommodation at Mulund Mall, we see no reason to interfere. The petition is dismissed. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (Smt. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.) (Smt. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.) (Smt. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.)