JUDGMENT :

Abhilasha Kumarim, J.

The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by making the following prayers:

“(a) To direct the respondent authorities to take legal action/steps against the illegal construction being put up by the respondent nos.3 and 45 in Plot No.B-69 B-70 and C-24 respectively as per the representations made by the present petitioner which are at Annexure-C Colly.

Or In The Alternative

(b) Direct the respondent Corporation to immediately and forthwith decide the representations made by the present petitioner and thereafter take appropriate legal steps against the respondent nos.3 and 4;

(c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, be pleased to direct the respondent Corporation to restrain the respondent nos.4 and 5 from putting up any illegal construction on the plots being B-69 B-70 and C- 24 respectively;

(d) To grant any other appropriate and just relief/s.”

2. The petitioner is a resident of Satguru Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., having purchased Plot No.C-6 in the said Society. According to the petitioner, respondents Nos.3 and 4 (wrongly mentioned as respondent No.45 in the prayer clause) have put up illegal constructions in Plot No.B-69, B-70 and C-24. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Surat Municipal Corporation (respondent No.1) as well as the Surat Urban Development Authority (Respondent No.5- “SUDA” for short), are not taking any action regarding demolition of the alleged illegal constructions put up by respondents Nos. 3 and 4. Hence, the petition.

3. Mr. Jal S.Unwala, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that:

Satguru Co-operative Housing Society, where the petitioner resides, is divided into three Blocks. Block A is a commercial shopping complex, and Blocks B and C consist of residential Plots, known as Nilam Row Houses. The petitioner purchased Plot No. C-6 in Nilam Row Houses, by a Registered Sale Deed, in the year 2010. That the petitioner has made several representations to the concerned authorities regarding the illegal construction put up by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and has sent several reminders, drawing the attention of the Corporation as well as SUDA, to the illegal constructions being put up in breach of the revised plan and the N A permission granted by the authorities, as well as the statutory provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act. It is further contended that the petitioner has, by making applications under the Right to information Act, received a reply from the Corporation on 9-11- 2010, that no information is available regarding the illegal constructions in Satguru Co-operative Housing Society. It is contended that this is a clear case where the respondent Corporation and SUDA are not taking appropriate legal action in the matter. It is argued that the petitioner has brought the issue of illegal construction to the knowledge of the concerned authorities, but the authorities are not fulfilling their statutory obligations, and appear to be hand in glove with respondents Nos. 3 and 4, therefore, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.

4. Looking to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the material on record, a question arises whether the petitioner, who is a resident of Satguru Co-operative Housing Society, as are respondents Nos.3 and 4, is a 'person aggrieved' so as to maintain the petition. It is not the case of the petitioner that the alleged illegal construction by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 is being put up nearby, or adjacent to, the house of the petitioner. It has also not been averred in the petition, or submitted on behalf of the petitioner, that he is facing hardship or inconvenience due to the same.

5. Mr. Jal S. Unwala, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner has a right to maintain the petition, in view of the following judgments of the Supreme Court and other High Cour