JUDGMENT Taken on board. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are alleged to have raised an unauthorised construction which is sought to be demolished by the State and the local authority. The action of the respondents is sought to be impugned by filing this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. At the very outset, we asked the learned counsel for the petitioners why the petitioners should not have approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned counsel cited Hindustan Times v. State of U.P., (2003) 1 SCC 591 and State of Haryana v. Mohinder Pal, (2001) 9 SCC 292 = (2000) 2 SLJ 1316 in support of the submission that a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is maintainable. We have carefully perused the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel. We do not find any law laid down by this Court supporting the contention of the petitioners. As the petitioners have an efficacious remedy available under Article 226 of the Constitution, this petition under Article 32 is directed to be dismissed.