JUDGMENT M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent, namely, the Puducherry Housing Board, Puducherry, in purchasing the lands of the respondents 7 to 9, by way of sale deeds, dated 3.2.2010, as illegal and to, consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition to recover the sum of Rs.3,69,36,000, from the respondents 5 to 9 and to credit the said sum in favour of the third respondent Board. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Union is that the entire transaction relating to the purchase of the lands in question, from respondents 7 to 9, by the third respondent Board, by way of the sale deeds, dated 3.2.2010, is illegal, as it is in violation of Section 61, read with Section 19 of the Puducherry Housing Board Act, 1973. 4. It had been further stated that the purchase of the lands, by the third respondent Board, has been made for extraneous considerations, with the mala fide intention of unjustifiably enriching the 5th and the 6th respondents. The purchase of the lands in question, at a rate which is about 25 times more than the market value of the said lands, would be affecting, adversely, the welfare of the members of the petitioner Union. 5. It had been further stated that the purchase of the lands in question for illegal considerations would cause irreparable harm to the welfare of the petitioner Union, including its members and employees. Therefore, the petitioner Union has filed the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the third respondent Board stating that the Government of Puducherry has enacted the Pondicherry Housing Board Act, 1973, and had established the Puducherry Housing Board, the third respondent herein as the sole housing agency for the promotion and development of housing schemes in the Union Territory of Puducherry, to provide safe and convenient houses to the eligible persons, especially, the poor and the downtrodden sections of the society, at a reasonable cost. 7. 7. It had been further stated that, as per Section 61 of the Pondicherry Housing Board Act, 1973, it is made clear that the Board may enter into an agreement with any person, for the acquisition of the land, by purchase, lease or exchange, or any interest therein. It had been further stated that, as per the proviso to the said Section, the Board shall not enter into such agreement without the previous approval of the government, if the value of such land or interest therein exceeds ten thousand rupees. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents concerned had submitted that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner Union are frivolous in nature. The petitioner Union has no authority or right to file the writ petition challenging the act of the third respondent Board. The petitioner union cannot be said to be an aggrieved party to challenge the purchase of lands meant for the housing scheme. Further, the petitioner Union has not furnished before this Court sufficient evidence to substantiate its claims. A mere allegation that the third respondent Board had entered into illegal transactions cannot be taken note of, by this Court, without the production of the relevant records to make out a prima facie case against the respondents. In such circumstances, this court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition, as it is devoid of merits. 9. The learned counsels had further submitted that the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is not maintainable, before this court, as the petitioner Union cannot be said to be an aggrieved party. Further, it would not be open to the petitioner Union to seek the remedy before this Court, for setting aside the sale deeds, by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, we are of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this court to grant the relief, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. The petitioner has not furnished sufficient evidence for this court to arrive at the conclusion that the purchase of the lands in question, by the third respondent Board, is illegal and void. The petitioner has not furnished sufficient evidence for this court to arrive at the conclusion that the purchase of the lands in question, by the third respondent Board, is illegal and void. Even otherwise, it is for the petitioner Union to seek the reliefs, if any, for setting aside the sale deeds, before the appropriate civil forum, in accordance with the procedures established by law. Further, the petitioner Union cannot be said to be an aggrieved party for seeking the reliefs, as prayed for by it, in the present writ petition. In such circumstances, we find it appropriate to dismiss the writ petition, as it is devoid of merits. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.