JUDGMENT : G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. This is yet another case where substantial unauthorized commercial construction undertaken by the petitioner is an issue. 2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a challenge is mounted to the notice dated 21 February, 2023 issued to the petitioner under section 260(1), [Proceedings to be taken in respect of building or work Commenced contrary to rules or bye-laws.] of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (for short “the MMC Act”) by respondent no.1-Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation (for short “Municipal Corporation”), whereby the petitioner was called upon to submit all documents in regard to the construction undertaken by the petitioner on the plot of land where the petitioner is undertaking a commercial activity, i.e., running a hotel in the name and style of “Sahil Darbar Hotel”, as also running a “Bakery”. 3. The Municipal Corporation has recorded that the construction wherein these two activities are being undertaken by the petitioner is not authorized by the Municipal Corporation and/or is a rank illegal construction. The petitioner was accordingly called upon to submit all documents in that regard on 2 March, 2023 between 4 to 5 p.m. Apart from land ownership documents as also Non-Agricultural (NA) Certificate, the petitioner was called upon by the respondent-Municipal Corporation to furnish any construction permission issued by the Municipal Corporation and the approved plans in that regard. Such notice was admittedly received by the petitioner on 22 February, 2023 and reply to the said notice was submitted by the petitioner on 24 February, 2023, which was received by Municipal Corporation on 24 February, 2023. A copy of the reply is annexed to the petition at Exhibit “V” (Page 161). Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that apart from the said hotel and bakery, there is also an auto garage, namely, Yasin Auto Garage, Majid Tyres, Kamil Refrigerator, Khan Pump Shop, which are operating from the construction as undertaken by the petitioner and which are in existence for several years. 4. However, what is pertinent is that although the petitioner is asserting that he is the owner of the land, he has failed to furnish any documents which would show that such construction which was undertaken in running all these commercial units is in any manner authorized and/or legal and/or that the Municipal Corporation has sanctioned or authorized such construction. 4. However, what is pertinent is that although the petitioner is asserting that he is the owner of the land, he has failed to furnish any documents which would show that such construction which was undertaken in running all these commercial units is in any manner authorized and/or legal and/or that the Municipal Corporation has sanctioned or authorized such construction. In other words, if the construction as put up by the petitioner is without obtaining any permission from the Municipal Corporation, the same is bound to be illegal and unauthorized. Also, it appears to be a usual practice being adopted by such persons undertaking illegal constructions, to make reckless allegations of corruption against the officers of Corporation when action is being resorted to remove unauthorized construction. The present case is no exception as seen from the pen ultimate paragraph of the reply as submitted on behalf of the petitioner to the Corporation’s notice issued under Section 260(1) of the MMC Act. It is on such premise, being aggrieved by the notice issued by Municipal Corporation under section 260(1), the present Writ Petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs : “(i) By an appropriate Writ of Mandamus or such other writ the notice dated 21/02/2023 u/s. 260(1) of MMC Act addressed by respondent no. 2 kindly be quashed and set aside; (ii) By an appropriate writ of mandamus on such other writ, the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 be restrained from demolishing the said structures of the petitioner existing on the said portion of the said land; Or in the Alternative: (iii) By an appropriate writ or order of this Hon’ble Court, the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 be directed to compound the tolerated structures of the petitioner on such conditions, the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper; (iv) By an appropriate Writ or order of this Hon’ble Court, this Court may take appropriate strict action against person of respondent no. 1 involved in the said act and against the respondent no. 3 for playing mischief. (v) Pending the hearing and disposal of this petition, add interim & interim relief in term clause “i” and “ii” above be granted in favour of the petitioner; (vi) Such other order the Hon’ble High Court deem fit and proper for the petitioner may kindly pass in his favour.” 5. This petition was filed on 4 March, 2023. (v) Pending the hearing and disposal of this petition, add interim & interim relief in term clause “i” and “ii” above be granted in favour of the petitioner; (vi) Such other order the Hon’ble High Court deem fit and proper for the petitioner may kindly pass in his favour.” 5. This petition was filed on 4 March, 2023. Anticipating that the Municipal Corporation is likely to take further action, this petition was moved urgently before this Court. 6. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner has limited submissions. In support of the prayers as made in the petition, his first submission is that during the pendency of the petition, an order dated 8 March, 2023 has been passed by the Municipal Corporation, a copy of which is placed on record. Perusal of the said order indicates that after the petitioner was heard and all the documents relied by him were examined, the designated officer of the Municipal Corporation has come to a conclusion that the construction as objected was unauthorized and the same is required to be pulled down by the petitioner as per the provisions of Section 260(2) of the Act, within seven days from the receipt of the said notice, failing which, the Municipal Corporation would be required to take appropriate steps as specified therein to remove the said illegal construction. Mr. Joshi submits that in view of the order dated 8 March, 2023 passed by the Municipal Corporation declaring the construction to be unauthorized, the petitioner should be permitted to submit an application for regularization of the said unauthorized construction and till such time regularization application is decided, the Municipal Corporation be directed not to take any coercive action in regard to the structures as objected by the Municipal Corporation. 7. Mr. Joshi has also made submissions on the action of the Municipal Corporation in issuing impugned notice. His first submission is that the impugned notice dated 21 February, 2023 issued by the Municipal Corporation under section 260(1) does not give sufficient time to the petitioner and/or atleast 15 days time to respond to the said notice and for such reason, no action under the said notice including the consequential order dated 8 March, 2023, although not assailed, is required to be held to be illegal. In supporting such submissions, Mr. In supporting such submissions, Mr. Joshi has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sopan Maruti Thopte & Anr. vs. Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr., 1996 (1) Mh. L.J. 963. 8. To appreciate such contention of Mr. Joshi and more particularly in the facts of this case, it would be appropriate for us to note the statutory provisions, namely, Section 260 of M.M.C. Act, which reads thus : “260. Proceedings to be taken in respect of building or work Commenced contrary to rules or bye-laws.- (1) The Commissioner shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, designate an officer of the Corporation to be the Designated Officer for the purposes of this section and of sections 261, 264, 267 and 478. The Designated Officer shall have jurisdiction over such local area as may be specified in the notification and different officers may be designated for different local areas. (1A) If the erection of any building or the execution of any such work as is described in section 254 is commenced or carried out contrary to the provisions of the rules or bye-laws, the Designated Officer unless he deems it necessary to take proceedings in respect of such building or work under section 264, 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 Designated 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 authorised by him in that behalf, and show sufficient cause why such building or work shall not be removed, altered or pulled down. (2) If such person shall fail to show sufficient cause, to the satisfaction of the Designated Officer why such building or work shall not be removed altered or pulled down, the Designated Officer may remove, alter or pull down the building or work and the expenses thereof shall be paid by the said person.” 9. (2) If such person shall fail to show sufficient cause, to the satisfaction of the Designated Officer why such building or work shall not be removed altered or pulled down, the Designated Officer may remove, alter or pull down the building or work and the expenses thereof shall be paid by the said person.” 9. It is seen that Section 260 of the Act has been amended by the Legislature by Maharashtra Act 2 of 2012 whereby the existing provision under sub-section (1) was renumbered as sub-section (1A). On a plain reading of sub-section (1A) of Section 260, it is clear that if the erection of any building or the execution of any such work as described in section 254 is commenced or carried out contrary to the provisions of the rules or bye-laws, the Designated Officer unless he deems it necessary to take proceedings in respect of such building or work under section 264, in that event, the Designated officer 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 may 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 Designated Officer to show sufficient cause why such building or work shall not be removed, altered or pulled down. Sub-clause (b) of subsection (1A) stipulates that the Designated officer 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 authorised by him in that behalf, and show sufficient cause why such building or work shall not be removed, altered or pulled down. Sub-section (2) provides that if such person shall fail to show sufficient cause, to the satisfaction of the Designated Officer why such building or work shall not be removed altered or pulled down, the Designated Officer may remove, alter or pull down the building or work and the expenses thereof shall be paid by the said person. Thus, per se the provision itself is silent about any specific time being provided. 10. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to accept the submissions made by Mr. Joshi, relying on the decision of Sopan Maruti Thopte & Anr. Thus, per se the provision itself is silent about any specific time being provided. 10. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to accept the submissions made by Mr. Joshi, relying on the decision of Sopan Maruti Thopte & Anr. (supra), in the facts of the present case, for more than one reason. It is well settled that any issue in regard to an insufficient notice is a issue which touches upon the principles of natural justice and in the context the law would require. Any lack of opportunity to make adequate representation in a given situation may put the noticee into a prejudicial position. However, whether any prejudice at all is caused is a question to be considered in a given case. This for the reason that mere assertion of breach of principles of natural justice without any prejudice being caused is an argument in futility. It is in this context, the Court would be required to ascertain as to whether a sufficient notice was available to the petitioner in the facts of the present case. The present case is a clear case that a notice was issued to the petitioner under section 260(1) on 21 February, 2023, which was immediately responded by the petitioner by detailed reply dated 24 February, 2023 and received by the Municipal Corporation on the even date. In reply to the said notice, no grievance whatsoever has been made that 15 days notice is required to be issued for any justifiable reason. The reply in fact is a detailed reply, however, without furnishing any documents, the structures as constructed were authorized. In our opinion, in these circumstances, once no grievance was made by the petitioner that the notice was not a sufficient notice and in the absence of an explicit prejudice not being set out by the petitioner, it would not be open to the petitioner to raise a contention that the notice would fall foul of what was held by the Division Bench in the case of Sopan Maruti Thopte & Anr. (supra). In any event, the petition does not set out any prejudice if any being caused to the petitioner, for want of insufficient notice. Thus, to raise the contention before this Court for the first time, without fulfilling the basic test of any prejudice being caused, such contention as urged by Mr. Joshi cannot be accepted. 11. (supra). In any event, the petition does not set out any prejudice if any being caused to the petitioner, for want of insufficient notice. Thus, to raise the contention before this Court for the first time, without fulfilling the basic test of any prejudice being caused, such contention as urged by Mr. Joshi cannot be accepted. 11. Even otherwise, it is well-settled that when legal rights accrue to the parties, it is always open to the parties vested with such legal rights to waive such legal rights and/or acquiesce against assertion of such rights by not asserting the same at the threshold. No person can approbate and reprobate in the same breath. The law would certainly not permit a turn around by a person who has acquiesced in the situation by not raising such objection or by not asserting such legal rights when they are to be asserted at the threshold. It is also in such situation, the principle of estoppel applies. The present case falls in such category when the petitioner at the very inception never objected on the prejudice being caused to the petitioner by the impugned notice by contending that the notice was an insufficient notice. It is clear that the petitioner responded to such notice by his detailed reply, however, without an iota of supporting material that the construction was authorized and legal. Thus, the impugned notice in the present circumstances cannot be held to be illegal applying the law as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Sopan Maruti Thopte & Anr. (supra). 12. Insofar as the contentions urged by Mr. Joshi that the petitioner be permitted to make a regularization application, we are not inclined to accept such submission for more than one reason. Firstly, it cannot be countenanced that in the facts of the present case, such unauthorized or illegal construction undertaken by the petitioner without adhering to the provisions of law could at all be permitted to be regularized. It cannot be countenanced that in every case of illegal construction, when an action against the same is being taken, a regularization application can be made so as to save the illegal/unauthorized construction. Such course of action cannot be accepted to be a routine permissible course of action defeating the vital provisions of law requiring prior permission to be obtained for putting up any construction. Such course of action cannot be accepted to be a routine permissible course of action defeating the vital provisions of law requiring prior permission to be obtained for putting up any construction. A regularization provision cannot be a weapon to be utilized by the petitioner in every case of rank unauthorized construction to regularize the same. If such course of action is permitted, it would amount to doing violence to the provisions of section 53(3) read with Section 44 of the MRTP Act. In fact, permitting any such course of action would amount to putting a premium on illegal constructions and/or encouraging unauthorized construction. This would bring about a lawless regime in putting up illegal construction. Such can never be the intention of the legislature when it prescribes strict provisions to govern construction under the planning laws. 13. In such context, in a recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Kaalkaa Real Estates Private Limited & Anr. vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors., 2023 (1) Bom. C.R. 1316, the Division Bench taking into consideration several decisions on the subject, has observed that any retention/regularization of unauthorized work, if accepted, will amount to large scale violation of provisions of law and invite wrongdoers to carry out any extent of unauthorized construction. The Court referring to decisions of Supreme Court in M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. vs. Radhey Sham Sahu, (1999) 6 SCC 464 , Savitribaiphule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Kamlapur vs. Solapur Municipal Corporation & Anr., 2019 SCC Online Bom. 1771, Supertech Ltd. vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Ors., (2021) 10 SCC 1 and Esha Ekta Apartments Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. vs. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai, (2013) 5 SCC 357 observed that no laxity can be shown by the Courts in matters pertaining to unauthorized and illegal constructions. The common thread running through the said decisions is to the effect that if a construction is unauthorized and/or is put up not following the procedure in law, the same cannot be sustained and would be required to be demolished. It would be relevant to note the observations of the Division Bench referring to such decisions, which reads thus : “85. It would be relevant to note the observations of the Division Bench referring to such decisions, which reads thus : “85. Supreme Court also considered in the said judgment, a judgment in case of M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. vs. Radhey Sham Sahu (1999) 6 SCC 464 holding that no consideration should be shown to the builder or any other person where construction is unauthorized. Such a discretion cannot be exercised which encourages illegality or perpetuates an illegality. Unauthorized construction, if it is illegal and cannot be compounded, has to be demolished. There is no way out. Judicial discretion cannot be guided by expediency. Courts are not free from statutory fetters. Justice is to be rendered in accordance with law. Judges are not entitled to exercise discretion wearing the robes of judicial discretion and pass orders based solely on their personal predilections and peculiar dispositions. Judicial discretion wherever it is required to be exercised has to be in accordance with law and set legal principles. It is held that a discretionary power must be exercised having regard to the larger public interest. 88. This Court in case of Savitribaiphule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Kamlapur Vs. Solapur Municipal Corporation & Anr., 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1771 has held that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not only extraordinary but equitable and discretionary as well. It will not be permitted to be invoked so as to subvert the law or to make a mockery of the rule of law. If this Court allows the Petitioner to retain the construction activity carried out at site or the Municipal Corporation to tolerate it we would be not only acting contrary to law but making a mockery of the rule of law. 93. Supreme Court in case of Supertech Limited vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association & Others, (2021) 10 SCC 1 dismissed the civil appeal filed by the applicant whose construction was declared as unauthorized and its writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the 'rampant increase in unauthorized constructions across urban areas, particularly in metropolitan cities where soaring values of land place a premium on dubious dealings has been noticed in several decisions of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the 'rampant increase in unauthorized constructions across urban areas, particularly in metropolitan cities where soaring values of land place a premium on dubious dealings has been noticed in several decisions of the Supreme Court. This state of affairs has often come to pass in no small measure because of the collusion between developers and planning authorities.' Supreme Court held that the 'regulation of the entire process is intended to ensure that constructions which will have a severe negative environmental impact, are not sanctioned. Hence, when these regulations are brazenly violated by developers, more often than not with the connivance of regulatory authorities, it strikes at the very core of urban planning, thereby directly resulting in an increased harm to the environment and a dilution of safety standards.' Supreme Court held that 'illegal construction has to be dealt with strictly to ensure compliance with the rule of law.' 96. The Supreme Court further adverted to the judgment in case of Esha Ekta Apartments Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai, (2013) 5 SCC 357 where it was held that an unauthorized construction destroys the concept of planned development, and places an unbearable burden on basic amenities provided by public authorities. The Supreme Court accordingly held that it was imperative for the public authority to not only demolish such constructions but also to impose a penalty on the wrongdoers involved.” (emphasis supplied) 14. The above decision of the Division Bench has been confirmed by the Supreme Court as a Special Leave Petition filed against the above judgment of the Division Bench has been rejected by the Supreme Court. We, therefore, cannot permit such course of action to be adopted by the petitioner. In our firm opinion, it is sound jurisprudence that for whatever reasons a person can undertake rank illegal and unauthorized construction and after having done so, cannot contend that it would approach the municipal authorities for regularization. 15. This apart, Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation has submitted that even if the petitioner is inclined to make regularization application, such application would not be maintainable, as the land in question on which illegal construction has been put up is itself under a development plan reservation. We accept said statement made on behalf of the Municipal Corporation. 16. Rao, learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation has submitted that even if the petitioner is inclined to make regularization application, such application would not be maintainable, as the land in question on which illegal construction has been put up is itself under a development plan reservation. We accept said statement made on behalf of the Municipal Corporation. 16. For the above reasons, we are not inclined to entertain this petition, which is thoroughly misconceived. It is accordingly rejected. No costs. 17. At this stage, Mr. Joshi has sought for interim protection. In the facts of the case, we are not inclined to accept the request made by Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. It will be permissible for the Municipal Corporation to take further appropriate course of action after a copy of this order is available on the website of the High Court. In the second session 18. After the above order was pronounced in the first session, Mr. Joshi learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is now willing to remove the unauthorized structures and for which two weeks time be granted to the petitioner. 19. Mr. Rao learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation would not have any objection. However, he submits that this would be subject to the condition that the petitioner places on the record an undertaking that he shall without asking for any further extension, remove the unauthorized structure within four weeks from today. Such course of action is agreeable to the petitioner as stated by Mr. Joshi. Accordingly, let an undertaking on affidavit to that effect be placed on record by the petitioner within two weeks from today that the petitioner, without asking for any extension, shall remove the entire unauthorized structures within four weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. 20. Needless to observe that the petitioner has undertaken to remove the structures within four weeks from today, the Municipal Corporation shall not take any coercive action under the impugned order passed under Section 260(2) of the MMC Act for a period of four weeks. 21. In the event the petitioner does not file the undertaking and furnish a copy of the same to Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation, the Municipal Corporation in that event is free to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.