JUDGMENT : BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. 1. The petitioners Schools, by way of the present petition, have prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the notice dated 16.2.2017 issued by the respondent No. 2 Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent Corporation") calling upon the petitioners to remove the unauthorised constructions/ encroachments made by them on the 36 mt. wide road, situated at the residential area known as ‘Kaliabid’ faling within the area of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation. It has been alleged in the said notice that the said illegal constructions/encroachments were causing obstruction to the respondent Corporation in laying the sewage and water pipe lines and were also causing obstruction to the traffic movements to the residents of the said locality and the general public. 2. At the outset, it may be stated that the Court, while issuing notices to the respondents on 17.2.2017, had directed the respondents to maintain status quo. The said order has been continued till this date. In the meantime, the Court, vide the order dated 10.10.2017 had, at the request of the learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Mihir Thakore for the petitioners, directed the respondent Corporation to explore the possibility of shifting the drainage line as suggested by the consulting engineer of the petitioners and accordingly, the Commissioner of the respondent Corporation along with the said engineer and the officers of the Town Development Department had visited the site. The report prepared by the Town Development Officer has been produced by the respondent Corporation along with the affidavit-in-sur-rejoinder, wherein it has been stated inter-alia that the petitioners had made huge illegal constructions, including at the basement under the 36 mt. wide road in question shown in the lay-out plan and that the alternative suggestion made by the consulting engineer of the petitioners was not feasible for the reasons stated therein. 3. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Thakore for the petitioners that the petitioners are running the Schools, where about four thousand students are studying and the respondent Corporation had issued the impugned notice, directing the petitioners to remove the alleged constructions/encroachments made on the 36 mt. wide road in question within one day, which notice was ex facie illegal and arbitrary. Advocate Mr. Thakore for the petitioners that the petitioners are running the Schools, where about four thousand students are studying and the respondent Corporation had issued the impugned notice, directing the petitioners to remove the alleged constructions/encroachments made on the 36 mt. wide road in question within one day, which notice was ex facie illegal and arbitrary. He further submitted that under the guise of laying sewage and water pipe lines, the officers of the respondent Corporation wanted to cause harassment to the petitioners. According to him, Kaliabid land is a private property and not the public property, and that the alleged 36 mt. wide road having not been declared as public street by the respondent Corporation, no such drainage or sewage line could be laid by the respondent Corporation in the private property. According to him, there are number of constructions existing in the Kaliabid area, put up by various persons and the entities without any permission from the Corporation, for which the Supreme Court had also taken note in one of the proceedings. He further submitted that though alternative arrangement for laying the drainage/sewage pipe lines was possible, because of the adamant approach on the part of the officers of the respondent Corporation, the same was not being accepted. 4. However, the learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Prashant Desai for the respondent Corporation, placing reliance upon the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent Corporation, submitted that the residents of Kaliabid area had made complaints apprehending the health hazards on account of the soak pits and septic tanks, and therefore, the respondent Corporation had prepared a plan for laying sewage lines throughout the area at the cost of Rs. 9,92,90,000/- and the same was also sanctioned by the Government of Gujarat through its Urban Development and Urban Housing Department in the year 2015. According to him, 80% of the work has already been executed, however, because of the illegal constructions and encroachments on the 36 mt. wide road made by the petitioners, the rest of the work has been hampered. Pressing into service various provisions of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), more particularly the obligatory duties of the Corporation as contained in Section 63 thereof, he submitted that the Corporation is duty bound to make reasonable and adequate provision for the sewage and drainage for the entire city. Pressing into service various provisions of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), more particularly the obligatory duties of the Corporation as contained in Section 63 thereof, he submitted that the Corporation is duty bound to make reasonable and adequate provision for the sewage and drainage for the entire city. Reliance was also placed on Sections 153 and 155 of the said Act to submit that the Commissioner is required to construct new drains as may be necessary for effectually draining the street, not necessarily public street. Mr. Desai also submitted that the 36 mt. wide road was included in the lay-out plan sanctioned by the Bhavnagar Development Authority as back as in the year 1981 and the said road has also been included in the revised lay-out plan submitted by Palitana Sugar Mills Private Limited. According to him, the petitioners have carried out huge illegal constructions of School buildings and other buildings including the parking and the basement, which is causing great inconvenience to the residents of the said area. 5. At the outset, it deserves to be noted that the petitioners have conveniently remained silent in the petition, as to how they came to occupy the land on which they are running the schools, and as to how the construction of school buildings or the alleged construction on or under the 36 mt. wide road in question was legal construction. The only submission made by learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Thakore in this regard would be that all constructions existing in the Kaliabid area are illegal and respondent Corporation is not taking any action against the other illegal constructions. The Court fails to understand as to how the negative equality could be claimed in the petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is needless to say that the equitable jurisdiction could not be invoked in the writ petition at the instance of the petitioners, who do not come with clean hands or who themselves are the wrong-doers. 6. As held by the Supreme Court in case of Vishal Properties (P) Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2007) 11 SCC 172 , Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate an illegality. It provides for positive equality and not negative equality. 6. As held by the Supreme Court in case of Vishal Properties (P) Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2007) 11 SCC 172 , Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate an illegality. It provides for positive equality and not negative equality. Any action/order contrary to law does not confer any right upon any person for similar treatment. Hence, merely because action is not taken against the illegal constructions existing in the area, the petitioners’ illegal constructions, which are causing obstructions to the traffic movements in the locality or to the sewage network to be carried out by the Corporation in the interest of the residents of the locality, could not be protected. The Supreme Court has also observed in catena of decisions that Article 14 should not be stretched too far, which otherwise would make functioning of administration impossible. In this regard, beneficial reference of the decisions in cases of Anand Buttons Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, (2005) 9 SCC 164 and Fuljit Kaur vs. State of Punjab, (2010) 11 SCC 455 , be made. 7. Having said that, it may be further noted that as stated in the affidavit-in-reply, the Corporation, with the sanction of the Government of Gujarat, had prepared a plan for laying sewage network throughout Kaliapid area costing about Rs.9 cr., considering the health problems of about 50000 residents staying in the said area. The said work had already started as back as in the year 2015 and has been completed up to 80%. It is because of the non-cooperation of the petitioners, and because of the illegal constructions and encroachments made by them on the road in question, the Corporation is not in a position to complete the construction of the said sewage network. It is true that the Corporation in the year 2013 had issued notices to the petitioners, calling upon them to remove illegal constructions carried out by them on the land in question, and thereafter a long gap had elapsed, and had issued the impugned notice, calling upon them to remove the constructions within one day. Such notice of one day ex facie can not be said to be legal notice, nonetheless at this juncture, the said issue has paled into insignificance in view of the fact that due to the ad-interim relief granted by the Court, the impugned notice has not been implemented. Such notice of one day ex facie can not be said to be legal notice, nonetheless at this juncture, the said issue has paled into insignificance in view of the fact that due to the ad-interim relief granted by the Court, the impugned notice has not been implemented. It is to be noted that the Court considering the suggestion of the petitioners had also directed the respondent Corporation to explore the possibility of alternative arrangement for laying the sewage line, however, as per the report submitted by the Town Development Officer in presence of the engineer of the petitioners and the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, the alternative site suggested by the petitioners was not found to be feasible or suitable. In any case, the petitioners, who are the wrong-doers, can not insist for the alternative arrangement in order to protect their illegal constructions. 8. Though much was argued by Mr. Thakore on the duty of the Corporation to lay drainage line or sewage line in the private land, the Court has not found any substance in the said submission. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Desai, learned Sr. Advocate for the respondent Corporation, Section 63 of the said Act lays down obligatory duties on the part of the respondent Corporation, which makes it incumbent on the Corporation to make reasonable and adequate provision for the matters enumerated therein, more particularly for the collection, removal, treatment and disposal of sewage, offensive matter and rubbish. The Commissioner, is also empowered under Section 155 of the said Act to carry any municipal drain through, across or under any street, or any place laid out as or intended for a street or under any cellar or vault, which may be under any street, after giving reasonable notice in writing to the owner or occupier, into, through or under any land whatsoever within the city, or, for the purpose of outfall or distribution of sewage, without the city, such street need not be a public street as sought to be contended by Mr. Thakore. In the instant case, as stated in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent Corporation, the entire sewage network in the area Kaliapid having been prepared and executed for the improvement of the quality of the life of the residents and for their protection from health hazards, the petitioners could not be permitted to cause any hindrance in the same. Thakore. In the instant case, as stated in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent Corporation, the entire sewage network in the area Kaliapid having been prepared and executed for the improvement of the quality of the life of the residents and for their protection from health hazards, the petitioners could not be permitted to cause any hindrance in the same. It may also be noted that the petitioners, except showing that they are running the schools, there is nothing on record to suggest that they are the legal owners or legal occupiers of the land in question, and the construction put up by them thereon is legal, more particularly on the 36 mt. wide road in question. 9. The learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Thakore for the petitioners has failed to point out violation of any statutory or fundamental rights of the petitioners. Mr. Desai, learned Sr. Advocate for the respondent Corporation, on the other hand, has established that the petitioners have made illegal encroachments and have tried to cause hindrance in the execution of the mandatory duties of the Corporation. The present petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. The ad-interim relief stands vacated forthwith. Petition dismissed.