ORDER 1. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition, by way of public interest litigation, stating that large number of illegal constructions have taken place in the township of Indore and no action is being initiated by the Indore Municipal Corporation, Indore. 2. A reply was filed way back in the year 2015 and the respondent – Corporation has filed Annexure R-1 along with the reply and has categorically stated that the construction referred by the petitioner as well as other constructions in which some illegality has been noticed, they have initiated action and they are proceeding ahead in accordance with law. 3. At this stage, Mr. Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent – Indore Municipal Corporation, Indore has further stated that section 307 of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 provides for an alternative remedy and in case there is any illegal construction, the petitioner shall be free to approach the District Judge for removal or alteration of the illegal construction / building. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that large number of illegal constructions have been demolished by the Corporation. 4. Section 307 of the MP Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 reads as under : 307. Power to require, removal or alteration of work not in conformity with byelaws or any scheme or any other requirement.- (1) If any building is erected or re-erected in contravention of any town planning scheme mentioned under section 291 or of any building byelaws made under section 427, the Commissioner without prejudice to his right to take proceedings for a fine in respect of the contravention, may by notice require the owner either to pull down or remove the work or , if he so elects, to effect such alterations therein as may be necessary to make it comply with the said scheme or byelaws. (2) If a building is erected or re-erected- (a) without any sanction as required by section 293(1) or (b) when sanction has been refused, or (c) in contravention of the terms of any sanction granted, or (d) when sanction has lapsed under section 300. (2) If a building is erected or re-erected- (a) without any sanction as required by section 293(1) or (b) when sanction has been refused, or (c) in contravention of the terms of any sanction granted, or (d) when sanction has lapsed under section 300. The Commissioner, unless he deems it necessary to take proceedings in respect of such building or work under section 294, shall- (a) by written notice, require the person who is erecting such building or executing such work or has erected such building or executed such work on or before such day as shall be specified in such notice, by a statement in writing subscribed by him or by an agent duly authorised by him in that behalf and addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, to show sufficient cause why such building or work shall not be removed, altered or pulled down, or; (b) shall require the said person on such day and at such time and place as shall be specified in such notice to attend personally or by an agent duly authorÁed by him in that behalf, and show sufficient cause why such building or work shall not be removed, altered or pulled down. (3) If such person shall fail to show sufficient cause, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, why such building or work shall not be removed, altered or pulled down, the Commissioner may remove, alter or pull down the building or work and the expenses thereof shall be paid by the person. (4) If the plans are approved by the Commissioner and the approval is communicated to the person intending to build the house or if the plans are rejected by the Commissioner but no notice of their rejection is given to person intending to build the house within the prescribed period, it shall not be open to the Commissioner to give a notice under sub-section (1) and (4) on the ground that the building is erected or reerected in contravention of any scheme or byelaws or any other requirements under the chapter. (5) Nothing in this section shall affect then right of the Corporation or any other person to apply to the District Court for an injunction for the removal or alteration of any building on the ground that it contravenes any provision of this Act or the byelaws made thereunder, but if the building is one in respect of which plans have been deposited and the plan s have been passed by the Commi-ssioner, or notice that they have been rejected has not been given within the prescribed period after the deposit thereof, and if the work has been executed in accordance with the plans, the District Court on granting and injunction shall have power to order the Commissioner to pay to the owner of the work such compensation as the District Court thinks just, but before making any such order the District Court cause the Commissioner if not a party to be joined as a party to the proceedings. 5. In the light of the aforesaid statutory provision of law, the present writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach learned District Judge in case there is any illegal structure / unauthorised construction in existence and the petitioner's application will not be dismissed on the ground of locus standi. Mr. Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent – Corporation has also assured this Court that the respondent Corporation shall take all possible steps to remove the illegal constructions keeping in view the provisions of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. 6. The Commissioner, Indore Municipal Corporation, Indore shall also conduct a survey and shall ensure that action is initiated against all unauthorised constructions, in accordance with law. The petitioner's application will not be dismissed on the ground of locus standi, as the issue has already been decided by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dilip Kaushal and another v. State of M.P. and others, reported in ( 2008 (3) JLJ 171 (FB)= AIR 2008 MP 324 ). 7. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.