in spite of bringing it to the notice of respondents 1 and 2 by representation dated 07-01-2009, no action was taken by them. 3. Counter affidavit was filed by respondents 1 and 2 before the learned single Judge stating that there is no ramp on the common passage as alleged by the petitioner. However, it was stated that the 3rd respondent has constructed a roof over the common passage without obtaining permission and subsequently, on the application of 3rd respondent, the said construction, including the alleged roof over the common passage, was regularized under BPS scheme, vide proceedings No.BPS/48702/C7/CZ/08, dated 05-07-2010. Since the roof constructed on the common passage by the 3rd respondent was regularized by respondents 1 and 2, the averments and counter averments made by the parties involve factual aspects, the writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, this writ appeal. 4. As seen from the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 that there is no ramp on the common passage as alleged by the petitioner, but the 3rd respondent has constructed a roof over the common passage and that was also regularized under BPS scheme on an application made by the 3rd respondent. Hence, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the construction of a roof over the
