JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---By this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the show cause notice dated March 9, 1998 issued by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the order dated September 30, 1998 passed by the respondent No. 1. 2. This is a classic case of abuse of process of Court by the petitioner. We are therefore inclined to summarily dismiss this writ petition on the ground of conduct of the petitioner. The chronology of events mentioned hereinafter would establish the devious means adopted by the petitioners, which amounts to abuse of process of the Court. 3. Briefly stated, on 17th June, 1998, the petitioners made an application to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for permission to repair the existing stair case at the rear side of the building on the suit property which consists of a ground and one upper floor and attire (with sloping roof). This property was allegedly purchased by the petitioners, pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 29th March, 1989, from one Smt. Sushila S. Talathi. The respondent No. 2 granted permission in favour of the said Smt. Sushila S. Talathi, vide letter dated 18th September, 1989, restricted to the repair of stair case on the condition that no other construction will be undertaken; that rights of the owners of the adjoining properties are not violated in any manner; or there shall be no violation of any building laws of the Municipal Council. On 15-3-1990 the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 gave notice to the said Smt. Sushila S. Talathi pointing out that the work carried out in the suit property is not as per the permission granted for repairs of the staircase, therefore, called upon her to demolish the unauthorised construction erected behind the staircase and of replacement of roof. Besides the said show cause notice, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 lodged complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Panchagani Police Station, about the unauthorized construction undertaken by the owners of the suit property. For the first time on 9-8-1990, the petitioners applied to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 requesting to enter their names as owners of the said property. Till this time the petitioners did not disclose that they had already purchased the property vide sale deed dated 29-4-1989. For the first time on 9-8-1990, the petitioners applied to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 requesting to enter their names as owners of the said property. Till this time the petitioners did not disclose that they had already purchased the property vide sale deed dated 29-4-1989. Naturally, therefore, the unauthorized construction has been done by the petitioners under the guise of permission for repair of staircase granted by the respondent No. 2 in favour of Smt. Sushila S. Talathi. Nevertheless, the said application made by the petitioners came to be rejected, by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 4-9-1991, mainly because the petitioners had undertaken certain unauthorized construction on the said property. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 called upon the petitioners to demolish the illegal and unauthorized construction vide letter dated September 24, 1991. In response to the said show cause notice, the petitioner informed the respondent No. 1 by letter dated 30-9-1991 that since the criminal case against them was pending, which was instituted at the instance of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the respondent No. 1 should refrain from taking any coercive action against the petitioners. Later on the petitioners instituted a Regular Civil Suit No. 376 of 1992 against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for permanent injunction restraining them from demolishing any portion of the suit structure. In the said suit, petitioners succeeded in getting an order dated 2-12-1992 to the effect that the parties shall maintain status quo as on that date. It is pursuant to the said status quo order the petitioners have succeeded in preventing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from demolishing the unauthorized structure so far. 4. It is relevant to point out that there was mushroom growth of unauthorized constructions in Panchagani Hill Station, for which a public interest litigation was filed in this Court being Writ Petition No. 2754 of 1997. This Court by order dated 18th November 1998 directed the Municipal Council to take action against all the unauthorized constructions, which were duly identified in the said proceedings. It may be noted that in the said public interest litigation, being Writ Petition No. 2754 of 1997, this Court passed a detailed judgment on the basis of the report filed by the Committee appointed by this Court which identified approximately 1900 buildings and other violations in Mahabaleshwar-Panchagani region. 5. It may be noted that in the said public interest litigation, being Writ Petition No. 2754 of 1997, this Court passed a detailed judgment on the basis of the report filed by the Committee appointed by this Court which identified approximately 1900 buildings and other violations in Mahabaleshwar-Panchagani region. 5. The suit structure was undisputedly identified as one of the unauthorized construction against which appropriate action was required to be taken in the light of the said directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2754 of 1997. In the circumstances the respondent No. 2 issued notice on 9-3-1998 pointing out that there was unauthorized structure in the form of total new R.C.C. structure of ground plus 2 floors in the open space of the rear side of the suit property and 2nd floor on the said building. By the said notice the respondent No. 2 called upon the petitioners to show cause why the said structure should not be demolished being illegal and unauthorized. Evidently, after giving sufficient opportunity, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 passed order on 30-9-1999, having found that unauthorized construction of ground floor with 2 upper floors in open space of rear side of the said building; unauthorized construction of 2nd floor on the said building; construction included in report of High Level Committee appointed by the High Court; construction of area more than the permissible area in accordance with the permission for minor repairs; distance of compulsory open space and height of building and number of floors being more. This order and the proposed action of demolition of the unauthorised structure by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has been challenged by the petitioners in the present writ petition, which was filed on 20-10-1999. 6. That the petitioners, instead of pursuing this writ petition, for reasons best known to them instituted another Civil Suit No. 335 of 1999 in the Court of the Civil Judge, J.D., Wai, wherein obtained ex parte ad-interim order of status quo. It is relevant to note that this Court was not informed about the filing of the said suit nor any reference, has been made in the said civil suit that the present writ petition has been filed in this Court and the same is pending. It is relevant to note that this Court was not informed about the filing of the said suit nor any reference, has been made in the said civil suit that the present writ petition has been filed in this Court and the same is pending. When the present writ petition came up for hearing on 25-7-2000, this Court directed the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council to take inspection of the building in presence of Dr. Wadia, member of the Committee, as well as representative of Bombay Environment Action Group and submit its report to this Court. Pursuant to the said directions the Committee has submitted a report which has once again reiterated about the illegal and unauthorized construction carried on by the petitioners in the said property. Moreover, the Counsel appearing for the Bombay Environment Action Group brought to our notice about the different proceedings taken out by the petitioners for the same reliefs. 7. Since this Court was prima facie convinced that the petitioners were indulging in forum shopping, as for the same reliefs, besides filing this writ petition, they had also filed suits in the Civil Court and obtained order of status quo, without disclosing to the either Court about the two parallel proceedings, moreover the Civil Court was obviously not informed about the orders passed by this Court from time to time in the public interest litigation and that the suit structure has been found to be one of the offending structure by this Court, therefore, this Court by order dated 7-8-2000 thought it appropriate to withdraw the said civil suits filed by the petitioners and pending before the Civil Judge, J.D., Wai to itself. Accordingly, although this writ petition, the said suits, which were filed before the Civil Court, J.D., Wai, bearing Civil Suit No. 335 of 1999 and 376 of 1992, were together placed for hearing. 8. From the narration of the above events, it is more than evident that the petitioners have indulged in forum shopping and at any rate the present proceedings is a clear case of abuse of process of the Court in as much as the petitioners have succeeded in stalling the proposed action of demolition of their unauthorised structures for over last 10 years. In the circumstances, the present writ petition deserves to be summarily dismissed on account of the conduct of the petitioners. In the circumstances, the present writ petition deserves to be summarily dismissed on account of the conduct of the petitioners. It is relevant to note that when the possibility of this writ petition being likely to be dismissed became known to the petitioners, they discharged their earlier Advocate on Record and engaged a new Advocate on record, obviously only with a view to gain further time. This, in our view, clearly amounts to indulging in sharp practices, which cannot be countenanced. In the circumstances we dismiss this writ petition with exemplary costs which is quantified as Rs. 10,000/- to be paid within four weeks. If the petitioners fail to deposit the said amount, it shall be recovered from the petitioners as arrears of land revenue. The said amount be deposited as aforesaid in this Court, which shall be later on made over to the High Court Legal Aid Committee. 9. In so far as the said suits being Civil Suit No. 335 of 1999 and Civil Suit No. 376 of 1992 are concerned, the same are already withdrawn to this Court and shall now stand transferred to the Original Side of this Court. However, the Interim orders passed in both the aforesaid suits by the Civil Judge, Wai are set aside by this order. It will be now open to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to forthwith take action against the unauthorized and illegal construction in the suit property in accordance with law. 10. In the circumstances, the following order is passed : i) Writ Petition No. 5921 of 1999 is dismissed with exemplary costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/-. The said amount shall be deposited by the petitioners within a period of 4 weeks from today in this Court. In the event if the petitioners fail to deposit the amount towards costs, it shall be recovered from the petitioners as arrears of land revenue. As and when the said amount is deposited, it may be made over to the High Court Legal Aid Committee. ii) Civil Suit Nos. 376 of 1992 and 335 of 1999, which were filed before the Court of the Civil Judge, J.D., Wai, are transferred to the Original Side of the Bombay High Court. iii) All the interim orders passed in the aforesaid suits are set aside. iv) Rule stands discharged. Writ petition dismissed. -----