J. B. PARDIWALA, J. In this appeal, the appellants-petitioners seek to challenge the judgment and order dated 1st August, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 7868 of 2011, whereby the learned Single Judge refused to grant any relief to the appellants and rejected the writ petition.

2. This appeal reveals as to what extent the litigants have the audacity to abuse the process of the Court without any hesitation as if it is their right to use, abuse or misuse the process of the Court, merely because the forum is readily available.

3. The present appeal arises from a second round of litigation. The appeal is an example as to how the public projects can be stalled for years together.

4. Facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the present appeal can be summarised as under :

(1) It appears that the appellant is a Public Charitable Trust of which appellant No.2 is the Vice-President. The Trust is running a school having about 900 students. This school has been constructed on Final Plot Nos. 267 and 268 of the Town Planning Scheme No.2, Vadodara (Old Revenue Survey No. 50).

(2) As per the Town Planning Scheme No.2, a road of 7.5 metres width is passing through between Final Plot Nos. 267 and 268 of the said Town Planning Scheme. It is not in dispute that the Town Planning Scheme has been duly sanctioned by the Government way back in the year 1976 and came into effect from 15th March, 1976.

(3) In the year 2009, the appellants preferred Special Civil Application No. 11478 of 2009 with the main prayer that the said Scheme be varied to the extent of annulment of 7.5 metres road dividing Final Plot Nos. 267 and 268 of the Town Planning Scheme No.2.

(4) Record reveals that the construction of the school building carried out by the appellants was in excess of the approved plans. Part of the construction falls in the margin land of the said Town Planning road. Municipal authorities, therefore, issued a show-cause notice dated 26th August, 2009 to the appellants under Sec. 260(1) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 ('the B.P.M.C. Act'., for short) calling upon the appellants to remove such unauthorised construction.

(5) Record reveals that the appellants replied to the said show-cause notice vide a detailed representation dated 3rd September, 2009. The Municipal authorities, however, passed an order dated 23rd September, 2009 rejecting the objections of the appellants. This rejection order was also made a subject-matter of challenge by the appellants in Special Civil Application No. 11478 of 2009.

(6) The main thrust of the representation of the appellants right from the beginning was that the said Town Planning road of 7.5 metres width is no longer useful or necessary. The Town Planning Scheme, therefore, should be varied. It is primarily on this ground that the proposal for removal of the unauthorised construction is sought to be opposed.

(7) The learned Single Judge considered the submissions and came to the conclusion that it was not possible to issue directions to vary, the Town Planning Scheme. The contention of the appellants that the school accommodates large number of students and such removal of the construction would cause undue hardship to the students was taken care of by the learned Single Judge at the relevant point of time, by offering some breathing time to the appellants to vacate the premises. It appears that, thereafter, the appellants did not avail of the benefit of the time which was granted to them. The learned Single Judge, ultimately, vide order dated 1st February, 2010, rejected the Special Civil Application No. 11478 of 2009.

(8) It deserves to be noted that being aggrieved by the said order dated 1st February, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 11478 of 2009, the appellants preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 698 of 2010. The Division Bench, vide order dated 20th April, 2010, dismissed the appeal observing as under:

"None