The judgment established that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the specific reliefs act, and emphasized the discretionary nature of the power conferred on the commissioner under Section 288-d of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976.

( 1 ) BY this petition, the petitioner has sought the issuance of a writ of mandamus against the Bangalore mahanagara palike, Bangalore, directing it to take immediate action to remove the unauthorised constructions put up on the pavement and road of h. Siddaiah road cross, Bangalore-2 in order to keep the area clean and tidy and he has further prayed for grant of any other reliefer issuance of any other order or writ.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has claimed to be the owner of the property bearing No. 14, h. Siddaiah road cross, Bangalore-2 and he claims to be the owner of the factory i. e. , the silk twisting factory run in that building by him. The petitioner claims himself to be the tax payer. According to his case, the entire area is highly developed area having commercial buildings. According to the petitioner's case, on the pavement of the road, certain constructions alleged to be unauthorised constructions have been made by certain persons and on account of that, problems are created by the leaving of water and throwing out all waste materials. The petitioner has annexed certain photographs. According to the petitioner's case, the respondent has not at all attended its obligatory function with regard to maintenance, construction and cleaning of drains and lighting of public streets. It may be mentioned here that, no such relief had been claimed that they may be directed to perform these obligations. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has further submitted that the unauthorised constructions were raised some time in 1993 on the pavement abutting the compound wall of the petitioner's property and those constructions are on the pavement and on road. The petitioner's case is that, inspite of making complaints to the police and the respondent, nobody has tried to do anything and as such, the petitioner has filed this petition for the reliefs mentioned. As according to the petitioner, the respondent, mahanagara palike, is bound to remove the said unauthorised constructions made on the pavement. The petitioner has alleged that, instead of taking any action, the opposite party is encouraging such constructions under political influence.

( 3 ) IN para 6 of the writ petition, it has been stated that, in view of unauthorised constructions on the pavement, windows of the petitioner's property have been covered to some extent. Further, the said unauthorised constructions and the persons dwelling therein create lot of problems by leaving water and throwing all waste materials into the compound of the petitioner. As such, feeling aggrieved, as according to the petitioner he has no other remedy, he filed this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of india.

( 4 ) THIS petition has been listed for orders along with interimre lief application, la.-i, for grant of injunction, in which the relief has been claimed to the following effect:"wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court be pleased to direct the respondent to remove all the unauthorised constructions put up on the pavement and road of h. Siddaiah road cross, Bangalore-2 and also to restrain any further unauthorised constructions to keep the area clean and tidy, in the interest of Justice and equity. "this application was filed on 22-3-1993.

( 5 ) NOTICE of this petition has been taken on behalf of the opposite party. Smt. K. Nagaveni, learned counsel, holding the brief on behalf of Sri Ashok Haranahalli, counsel for the opposite party i. e. , mahanagara palike. On behalf of the opposite party, it was contended that the petitioner is not entitled to maintain the writ petition and as such, the interim relief application should not be allowed. She has further contended that as the relief claimed in the interim relief application and the main relief claimed in the writ petition are one and the same, if interim relief is granted, it would amount to granting some thing more than what is claimed in the writ petition and it cannot be granted unless