FARHAT SHIEKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. In our view, the Petitioner seeks reliefs that are not possible in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Prayer clauses (a) and (b) of Petition at pages 48 and 49 read thus:

(2.) To appreciate the context of these prayers, it is perhaps best to turn immediately to some of the photographs that have been attached to the Petition especially those at Exhibit "GG" at page 225. Another set of photographs at Exhibit "J" at pages 171 and 172 provides a different perspective.

(3.) The Petitioner complains that the advertisement hoardings put up by Respondents Nos. 9 to 12 on a property known as Sangli Villa, Bungalow No. 4 and Bungalow No. 3, Dakshinamurthy Society, JVPD Scheme, Mumbai 400 049 affect the Petitioner's ventilation, health, light, air and so on. There is no case that the hoardings are encroaching on any property belonging to the Petitioner. The Petitioner is on the adjacent plot. The Petition attempts to canvass the case that the advertisements have been allowed illegally but curiously paragraph8.3 of the Petition provides a materially different perspective.