information about the nature of construction put up by the sixth respondent or any other respondent in violation of the building regulations. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has not even stated whether the violations were by the sixth respondent or by the newly impleaded respondents who have purchased villas from the sixth respondent. In the representation by the petitioner to the District Collector, the petitioner stated that planning permission was obtained by earmarking certain extent of land for 'personal use'. However, the sixth respondent has now put up constructions contrary to the layout plan approval. When the approval is obtained by showing a particular plot of land in a layout for 'personal use', it is open to the Promoter to develop the same as the Promoter wishes. In the absence of any particulars about the deviations or violations by referring to any approved plan, the petitioner's writ petition in order to fish evidence by filing an affidavit without giving proper particulars, cannot be entertained. The petitioner has failed to give sufficient particulars about the nature of violations or the offending constructions either by the sixth respondent or by the persons who have purchased villas from the Promoter. No allegation is made against anyone of the private respondents who has been impleaded
