ORDER : Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept on record. 2. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition essentially seeking relief against the private respondent No. 6, who, according to the writ petitioners, has been engaged in unauthorised construction on two plots, being plot Nos. 694 and 695 under Mouza Khagda in the district of Purba Medinipur. 3. It appears from the averments made in the writ petition that there exists a private dispute between the petitioners and the private respondent No. 6. That apart, paragraphs 2 and 5 contradict each other. Simply by annexing a sketch map and making some bald statements as in paragraphs 5 and 9 is not enough for the purpose of invoking the Constitutional writ jurisdiction of this Court in such type of matters. 4. In such a fact situation, the writ Court ought not to adjudicate as to whether there has been, in fact, any unauthorised construction or whether such unauthorised construction has affected the rights of the writ petitioners in any manner. The writ petitioners, without approaching an appropriate civil Court for redressal of their grievances, have chosen to invoke the high prerogative Constitutional writ jurisdiction of this Court, which is impermissible. If such type of petitions are entertained, tried and determined by the writ Courts, it would simply amount to gross abuse of process of the Constitutional Courts, which discharge its function purely in exercise of its discretionary high prerogative jurisdiction under Article 226, only for the purpose of entertaining, trying and determining questions of law and interpretation thereof that are of significant importance under the Constitutional scheme of our country. Encouraging such petitions would tantamount to the writ Court granting tacit approval to a litigant to approach it at a drop of a hat, even when substantial remedy is available before a civil Court. Mere maintainability of a writ petition, based on allegations against a private respondent in respect of some unauthorised construction carried out by the latter within the jurisdiction of a Gram Panchayat, is not enough to secure mandatory orders from a writ Court, especially when it is called upon to pass such orders, based on pleadings which contain bald allegations, contradictory statements, unsubstantiated and unproven facts. 5. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed with costs and is accordingly dismissed with costs assessed at 50 G.Ms. 6. 5. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed with costs and is accordingly dismissed with costs assessed at 50 G.Ms. 6. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties. Petition dismissed.