1 w953.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.953 OF 2011 Kishore Gopichand Rajput .. Petitioner. Vs. Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Uday Warunjikar for the petitioner. Mr.A.B.Vagyani AGP for respondent nos.2 and 4. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ DATED : 8TH JUNE 2011 P.C.: 1. The petitioner by this petition is seeking direction to the authority to decide the application which was permitted to be made by respondent no.3 pursuant to the order dated 5th December, 2008 in Writ Petition No.7910 of 2000. It appears that respondent no.3 is the co-operative society which has constructed the building in Ulhasnagar and the application was submitted by that society for regularisation of their building. The concerned authority, however, rejected that application on the ground that excess F.S.I. has been consumed. The appeal was preferred against that order. That appeal was also dismissed. Therefore, Writ Petition No.7910 of 2000 was filed by that society challenging both these orders. This court by the order dated 2 w953.11 5th December, 2008 asked the authorities to reconsider the proposal for regularisation of the structure. The grievance of the petitioner is that the authorities have not reconsidered as directed by this court. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he is neither member of respondent no.3 – society nor he is occupying any portion of that building. According to the petitioner he is resident of that area. When we asked learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, how he has locus to make any demand in relation to the building of respondent no.3. He pointed out that according to the plan at page 33 that building has been constructed on the road and a nala, however, from perusal of the record shows that neither the designated authority nor the appellate authority decline to regularise the building on the ground that it was built on road or a nala but they declined to regularise the building only on the ground that excess F.S.I. has been consumed. The petitioner appears to be busy body. It is clear from the record that no right of the petitioner is violated, therefore, writ of mandamus cannot be issued by this court in favour of the petitioner. The petition is, therefore, rejected. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH,J)