1. Petitioner owns plot No. 486 situated at Jawahar Nagar, Srinagar with build up house. The house was constructed on spot in the year 1960-61 pursuant to approved map and permission accorded thereto. (Annexure P1 to P5). Petitioner in the wake of militancy migrated to Jammu in 1990. In May, 1998 he came to know the house with roof is gutted and needs repairs and placement of tin roof over the structure. Petitioner through his friend and attorney holder Sheikh Talaf Mehmood under took repairs and maintenance of the building. However, the respondents did not allow him to do so and instead petitioner initiated process to dismantle the existing structure. The attorney holder under took to demolish the structure of his own and thereby held back respondents from dismantling the structure. There is no necessity for petitioner to seek any fresh permission as the petitioner has not made any deviation from the original plan and has not committed any violation. Though under Migrant Property Act, District Magistrate was bound to maintain and look after the house in question yet petitioner through attorney holder took steps to maintain it and up-keep the property. Petitioner has prayed for writ of prohibition to restrain the respondents from dismantling the two storeyed house of petitioner on the plot and to allow him to undertake necessary repairs and put on tin-roof over the structure. 2. Respondents in reply on the affidavit of Administrator S.M.C., has questioned the maintainability of writ. Petitioner is stated to have filed appeal before J&K Special Tribunal regarding the subject of this writ and the said appeal has been dismissed on 30-04-1999. Demolition order in terms of Section 7 (3) of Control of Building Operation Act has been passed on 14-08-1999, against which an appeal lies. There is mis-representation of facts. Petitioner has suppressed the real facts. Petitioner in fact did apply for the construction of two storeyed house which was granted vide order No. 465 of 1998 dated: 16-11-1998. subject to terms and conditions contained therein. The petitioner deviated complex and completed three storeyed shopping structure, besides raised columns for 4th storey as well. Respondents initiated process for demolition under the control of Building Operation Act in respect of the deviation. Petitioner filed an appeal on 30-04-1999. subject to terms and conditions contained therein. The petitioner deviated complex and completed three storeyed shopping structure, besides raised columns for 4th storey as well. Respondents initiated process for demolition under the control of Building Operation Act in respect of the deviation. Petitioner filed an appeal on 30-04-1999. A notice U/s 12 of the J&K Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 (Annexure P-1) is served upon petitioner for stopping the construction but petitioner did not stop as a consequence another notice U/s 7 (1) of Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 was issued to him on 11-08-1999 (Annexure D-2) calling upon him to show cause as to why construction in-contravention of the aforesaid Building permission be not demolished. The petitioner again failed to reply. It was only thereafter that the demolishing order in terms of Section7 (3) of the Act came to be passed against the petitioner on 14-08-1999 (Annexure D-3). The petitioner has failed to avail statutory remedies and petition is prayed to be dismissed. Heard. Record perused. 3. After the structure was gutted, petitioner did apply for the construction of two storeyed house which was granted on 16-11-1998 subject to terms and conditions contained therein. Respondents found that petitioner had deviated from the sanctioned plan and permission, by constructing shopping complex, with addition of one more storey and laying of columns for 4th storey as well. Proceedings were initiated for demolition under the Act in respect of the above deviation against which an appeal was filed before the Special Tribunal which appeal was dismissed as premature. Notice U/s 12 of the Act was issued to petitioner calling upon him to stop unauthorised construction on 04-04-1999 after noting the deviations and violations of the plan and permission. As petitioner failed to comply with this notice he got another notice U/s 7(1) of the Act on 11-08-1999 to show cause as to why the construction raised in contravention of the provisions of the Act be not altered/demolished/pulled down to remove the contravention, failing which appropriate action U/s 7 (3) of the Act would follow. As petitioner failed to comply with this notice he got another notice U/s 7(1) of the Act on 11-08-1999 to show cause as to why the construction raised in contravention of the provisions of the Act be not altered/demolished/pulled down to remove the contravention, failing which appropriate action U/s 7 (3) of the Act would follow. Again petitioner failed to respond and to show cause, leaving no option to the respondents except to issue notice of demolishing U/s 7 (3) of the Act requiring petitioner to demolish the alteration or pull-down the part of the building in respect of the deviation of the sanctioned plan and to remove the contravention in specified period and in case petitioner again failed to do so within specified period, then the prescribed officer of S.M.C. with or without assistance of the Police force at petitioners cost is to remove the structure. Petitioner did not move in the matter. 4. Obviously petitioner has deviated from the sanctioned plan and granted permission. He has raised unauthorisedly shopping complex, 3rd storeyed structure and columns of 4th storey. He has not even left set-backs. Despite number of notices he has not cared to respond. Finally he has been asked to pull down unauthorised part of the structure and remove the violation. Petitioner without mentioning all these material and vital facts in petition has rushed to the court to seek writ of prohibition to restraint the respondents from demolition of the house. Suppression of these facts and material particulars obviously speaks of malafides on the part of petitioner. Suppression of the material facts by the applicant in its pleadings supported by affidavit would disentitle the petitioner to any relief and the writ has to be refused without going to the merits of the case. 5. Petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal against the order which he has not pursued. On the other hand petitioner in a round about manner has sought to restraint the Municipality and its officials from removing the violation and altering/pulling down of the deviations of the permitted structure as per sanction plan Petitioner is seeking writ of prohibition to restraint the respondents from pulling down/dismantly of the structure/building raised unauthorisedlly in the guies of restraining the respondents from dismantling the original house on spot which house in fact is gutted and new house and shopping complex is constructed in its place. 6. 6. Writ of prohibition is not issued as of right or matter of course. It can lie when the order is made in violation of rules of principle of natural justice unless it is, shown that the public duty is sought to be neglected or an open action is being undertaken in violation of public law. prohibition cannot be issued. It can be asked for where action is taken in absence of jurisdiction or where a case of open excessive exercise of such jurisdiction is made out or impugned proceedings are exposed to any law or statutory provisions. The action of the Municipality to dismantle the structure raised unauthoriscdly and in contravention of the terms and conditions of the permission and deviations of the approved plains within jurisdiction of the authorities and falls within the purview of J&K Control of Building Operation Act. The other limb of the prayer of seeking Mandamus for carrying repairs and roofing of the house cannot be also countenanced in as much as, petitioner under the garb of repairs and roofing has undertaken whole set of new construction for commercial purpose and that too in disregard to the permission and by deviations made in total disregard of the approved plan. A Mandamus can be issued if the applicant established legal right to performance of legal duty by the respondents. However, no mandamus can be, issued to direct the respondents to refrain from enforcing provisions of law or perform an act contrary to law. 7. In result no case is made out for admission of writ to hearing. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. The record produced by Mr. B. A. Khan is returned to him in the open court.