hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 913 OF 2009 Badlu Baldev Yadav .. Petitioner Versus The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai ... Respondents Mr. V.K. Gupta i/by M/s. Gupta & Gupta for Petitioner. Ms. S.M. Modle, for B.M.C. Respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 06, 2010 P.C. We have considered the reply filed on behalf of the Corporation by Mr. R.V. Rudraksh, Assistant Engineer. In Para 3 it is clearly set out that after receiving the complaint from Shreeji Chambers Premises Coop. Society Ltd. in the matter of unauthorised construction of stall at the entrance of the building, stop work notice was issued under section 354-A of the M.M.C. Act for unauthorisedly raising the height of shop and mezzanine floor and pursuant to the notice construction was demolished. Thereafter notice came to be issued under Section 55 of the M.R.T.P. for unauthorised construction of structure at the entrance of Shreeji Chambers on 12.2.2004. Pursuant to the said notice, the notice structure was demolished on 21.4.2004 and again on 14.7.2004. It appears that Petitioner thereafter have once again reconstructed the structure as observed in the site inspection on 4.12.2008. The Petitioner has approached this court for protecting his structure contending that notice under Section 55 is illegal. Considering the fact that inspite of the construction being demolished thrice, the issue whether notice under Section 55 was proper or not, need not be gone into by us. No party can approach this court by illegally reconstructing the structure that was demolished and then seek protection under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. We are not inclined to exercise our extra ordinary jurisdiction. Hence, petition rejected. (J.H. BHATIA, J.) (F,I. REBELLO,J.)