Judgment M.R. Shah, J.—By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner, who is alleged to have put up illegal construction, has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the show-cause notice dated 26.02.2011 issued by the respondent Corporation under Section 260(1)(a) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as “BPMC Act”). 2.0 At the outset, it is required to be noted that present petition is against the show-cause notice issued by the respondent Corporation under Section 260(1)(a) of the BPMC Act, by which the petitioner has been called upon to show cause why the illegal construction shall not be demolished and petitioner has been granted clear 7 days’ time to submit the reply. In the said notice also, it has been specifically mentioned that if the petitioner fails to respond to the said notice, further action under Section 260(2) of the BPMC Act shall be taken. Therefore, as such when the petitioner has been called upon to show cause, the present petition against the show-cause notice is not required to be entertained. As such petitioner has been granted an opportunity to submit his reply to the show-cause notice. It is not the case on behalf of the petitioner that the authority who has issued the notice under Section 260(1)(a) of the BPMC Act, has no jurisdiction at all. 2.1 Shri Oza, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has tried to justify filing of the present petition against the show-cause notice by submitting that as it is apprehended that immediately on completion of 7 days, the office of the Corporation without waiting further shall demolish the construction without giving any sufficient time as happened in past with respect to other two buildings and therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. The aforesaid has no substance and said apprehension is not well founded. It is to be noted that show-cause notice is dated 26.02.2011 and even after a period of 7 days, no further action is taken as on today. It is also required to be noted that as such nothing is on record whether the petitioner had responded to the said show-cause notice or not. It appears that having served with the notice under Section 260(1)(a) of the BPMC Act, petitioner has straightway preferred the present Special Civil Application. It is also required to be noted that as such nothing is on record whether the petitioner had responded to the said show-cause notice or not. It appears that having served with the notice under Section 260(1)(a) of the BPMC Act, petitioner has straightway preferred the present Special Civil Application. 2.2 Shri Oza, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned notice is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the same is with political malafides. It is submitted that on the very road, there are number of such buildings for which no action is taken. It is submitted that even with respect to one building which belong to the Councilor, though the statement was made before this Court that steps shall be taken and illegal construction shall be removed, the construction has not been removed. The aforesaid cannot be accepted. It is to be noted that as such there were three buildings belonging to the petitioner out of which illegal construction with respect to other two buildings are already removed for which no grievance has been made by the petitioner. So far as the third building is concerned, petitioner has been served with the notice under Section 260(1)(a) of the BPMC Act which is impugned in the present petition. It is not the case on behalf of the petitioner that despite the fact that the construction is legal, the show-cause notice has been issued. It is not the case on behalf of the petitioner that as with respect to other such illegal constructions no steps are taken, no action shall be taken against the petitioner. The aforesaid cannot be accepted. There cannot be negative discrimination. The petitioner who is alleged to have put up the illegal construction cannot be permitted to say that as against other buildings no action is taken, no action shall be taken against the petitioner and he may be permitted to continue the illegal construction. In the case of Union of India vs. International Trading Co. reported in 2003(5) SCC 437 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically observed and held that there cannot be any negative discrimination and that merely because some illegal order is passed in the case other persons, another person cannot claim parity/similar benefit which is as such found to be illega. reported in 2003(5) SCC 437 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically observed and held that there cannot be any negative discrimination and that merely because some illegal order is passed in the case other persons, another person cannot claim parity/similar benefit which is as such found to be illega. Under the circumstances, the contention on behalf of the petitioner that as with respect to other similarly situated buildings no steps are taken, petitioner’s illegal construction may not be removed, cannot be accepted. 3.0 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, there is no substance in the present petition which deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. P P P P P