8] There is no merit in the contention that the rejection of regularisation has been communicated by the authority having no jurisdiction in the matter. Ultimately, in this case, we are dealing with the MCGM and it is the MCGM, which has made it clear that the application for regularisation stands rejected. Further, the circumstance that the appellant applied for regularisation implies that even the appellant, was aware that the constructions undertaken by it were illegal and unauthorised. This is not a case where regularisation was applied for without prejudice or by way of abandon caution. For this purpose, the appellant was required to, at least prima facie, demonstrate that the constructions were in accord with the approved plans. Even this has not been done by the appellant. In fact, in the suit, the approved plans were never produced. If in the approved plans, there were provisions made for partition wall with brick and mason walls, then obviously, that is the first document, which the appellant would produce and demonstrate that there is nothing illegal about the said constructions. The fact that the approved plans have not been produced is sufficient to draw an adverse inference against the appellant. Besides, the appellant, who seeks discretionary reliefs, is required to come before the Court
