JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner Smt. Chanchala Devi w/o Sri. B.A. Narayana Reddy has filed this petition in this Court with the following prayers:- "(i) Quashing the Occupancy certificate vide No. ADTP/OC No. 93/2016-17 dtd. 06-03-2017 (Annexure-C), issued by Respondent No. 4 in respect of the Schedule Property. (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondents No.2 and 5 to demolish the building in the Schedule Property at the cost of the Respondent No.5. (iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondent No.6 not to sanction Power connection to the building in the Schedule Property on the basis of Impugned Occupancy Certificate. (iv) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondent No.7 not to sanction Water and sewage connection to the building in the Schedule Property on the basis of Impugned Occupancy Certificate. (v) Pass such other relief or reliefs including the order as to costs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice, equity and law". 2. The petitioner who had entered into an Agreement with the 5th Respondent-M/s. Akruti Developers to develop and construct the building on the site owned by the petitioner, is aggrieved by the Occupancy Certificate issued by the Respondents-BBMP in favour of the said 5th Respondent vide Annexure-C dated 06.03.2017 which was issued by the 4th Respondent-Addl. Director of Town Planning, Mahadevapura Zone, BBMP, Bangalore, on 06.03.2017 subject to various conditions after due inspection of the said building carried out on 22.02.2017 and upon payment of the compounding fine of Rs.22,55,700/- on 03.03.2017. The conditions of the said Occupancy Certificate interalia, stipulated in condition No.7 that if any deviation of construction from the sanction plan have been done, the said Occupancy Certificate can be cancelled and if there is any false representation or misrepresentation of the facts given by the applicant, the Occupancy Certificate shall be deemed to be cancelled. 3. The conditions of the said Occupancy Certificate interalia, stipulated in condition No.7 that if any deviation of construction from the sanction plan have been done, the said Occupancy Certificate can be cancelled and if there is any false representation or misrepresentation of the facts given by the applicant, the Occupancy Certificate shall be deemed to be cancelled. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of the Court that upon the complaint/representation filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Respondents-BBMP vide Annexure-E1 on 19.04.2017 to cancel the said Occupancy Certificate issued in favour of the 5th Respondent bearing No. 93/2016-2017 issued on 06.03.2017, pointing out the deviations and non- compliance made by the said applicant-5th Respondent, the said Occupancy Certificate itself has been withdrawn by the BBMP on 08.05.2017. However, that document is not placed on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for some time to place the same on record. 4. The grievance at this stage raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Respondents-BBMP should proceed to take further action against Respondent No.5-Builder in accordance with the provisions of the KMC Act, 1976, interalia, for demolition of the deviated construction or building itself. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is satisfied that the present petition is misconceived and the same deserves to be dismissed. 6. The process of sanction of building plan, its construction within the stipulated period of 5 years and the conditions stipulated in the Occupancy Certificate itself clearly indicates that if there are violations in the construction actually raised by the Developer from the sanction plan, there are various remedies available to the complainant provided under the provisions of KMC, Act, 1976, itself. 7. Firstly, such deviation can be brought to the notice of the Authority concerned himself who had issued that Occupancy Certificate or to the next higher authorities like it has been done in the present case, to the Commissioner of Respondent-BBMP. The Occupancy Certificate in such case, upon such deviations and non-compliances being established, is liable to be cancelled. The learned counsel for the petitioner himself has admitted before the Court that the Occupancy Certificate in the present case stands cancelled in the present case. Therefore, the main relief claimed in the present petition even stands granted by the Respondents-BBMP itself to the complainant-petitioner. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner himself has admitted before the Court that the Occupancy Certificate in the present case stands cancelled in the present case. Therefore, the main relief claimed in the present petition even stands granted by the Respondents-BBMP itself to the complainant-petitioner. 8. As far as further legal process by the Respondents-BBMP Authorities against the 5th Respondent is concerned, it is absolutely premature for this Court to issue any direction to the Respondents- BBMP Authorities at this stage. It is for the petitioner to file suitable representation to the concerned Authorities of the BBMP allowing them to take legal recourse in the matter in accordance with the provisions of the KMC Act, 1976. 9. There is no justification whatever for this Court to either monitor such exercise by the Respondents-BBMP Authorities or prematurely issue any mandamus directions to the Public Authorities. The filing of writ petition in such matters simply amounts to an abuse of process of law of this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Even if the public bodies like BBMP do not take appropriate action in the matter, upon such complaints or representations filed by the petitioner or their likes, the only remedy available to such complainants in such case is to avail the remedy by way of civil suits in the competent Civil Court under Section 9 of CPC. They have to not only make specific factual averments in such plaints, but have to lead appropriate evidence in accordance with the provisions of Evidence Act and CPC in such Civil Courts before claiming any such relief. It is misconceived to contend that the public bodies are not subject to the jurisdiction of civil Court in such civil suits. Therefore, such a contention as was raised before this Court in the present case is liable to be rejected. 11. It is misconceived to contend that the public bodies are not subject to the jurisdiction of civil Court in such civil suits. Therefore, such a contention as was raised before this Court in the present case is liable to be rejected. 11. The complainant in such cases should first pursue their remedy before the Departmental Authorities themselves, where the final fact finding body in the form of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has been constituted under the provisions of the KMC Act, 1976, and after such findings of facts are arrived at by the Tribunal, there may be a case for such parties to avail the course of law in Civil Court and that too commencing from the lower tiers of the Court system, namely, civil suits in the competent civil courts. 12. Initiating such legal process from the top by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is nothing but an abuse of process of law and bypassing the relevant remedies before the authorities created under the KMC Act, 1976 and then filing of civil suits, where such facts can be proved with the relevant evidence in accordance with law cannot be appreciated. All this exercise of establishing such facts in the civil courts cannot be allowed to be bypassed by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. As it has happened in the present case also that the petitioner approached this Court by way of present writ petition filed in this Court on 02.05.2017 and the petitioner had also already approached the Respondent-BBMP Commissioner vide Annexure-E1 Representation dated 19.04.2017. One fails to understand why the petitioner at all was advised to avail the two remedies simultaneously, one before the Departmental Authority namely the Commissioner, the Authority higher than the one who issued the Occupancy Certificate in question and also the present writ petition. 14. On the contrary, the facts as revealed by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself suggests that the Respondents-BBMP Authorities have taken prompt action in the matter and have even canceled the Occupancy Certificate presumably after recording their satisfaction that the same was issued on 06.03.2017 wrongly. 14. On the contrary, the facts as revealed by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself suggests that the Respondents-BBMP Authorities have taken prompt action in the matter and have even canceled the Occupancy Certificate presumably after recording their satisfaction that the same was issued on 06.03.2017 wrongly. The prayer made before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner after this stage to still direct the Respondents-BBMP to proceed further and take suitable action against the 5th Respondent including for demolition of the building itself is highly unfair and unjustified. 15. The petitioner has not even allowed sufficient breathing time to the Respondents-BBMP Authorities to consider the case on merits and proceed further in accordance with law and the petitioner wants it to be subjected to the close monitoring by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is what amounts to an abuse of the process of law is, which is deprecated. 16. Therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Copy of this order be sent to the Respondents forthwith.