1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 195 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 118 OF 1994 Roshanlal S. Jain ... Petitioner Vs. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & Ors. ... Respondents And Mr. Raghu Danappa Hegde ... Applicant Mr. A.R. Pande for Petitioner. Mrs. S.A. Dhamale for Applicant. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & MRS.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. MRS.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. MRS.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE : 23RD JUNE, 2006 DATE : 23RD JUNE, 2006 DATE : 23RD JUNE, 2006 P.C.: . It is the case of the Applicant that they had construction on the site and that was illegally demolished. It is further pointed out that they were also not parties to the petition. But subsequently they have been joined as Respondents. The relief sought for is permission for reconstruction in terms of dimensions as set out in Prayer Clause (a). . The case of the Petitioner is that there was no such structure on the site. . The settled law is that any construction can only be done with the permission from the licensing 2 authority. This court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction cannot take over the power conferred on the licensing authority. In these circumstances, if the applicant seeks to make any construction that can only be done by applying to the competent authority and after the competent authority grants permission considering the law in force at the time. With the above observations, motion disposed of. (MRS.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (MRS.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (MRS.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (F.I.REBELLO, (F.I.REBELLO, (F.I.REBELLO, J.) J.) J.)