IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 5524 of 2009. Date of Decision: 5th May, 2009. Shri Dinesh Sharma & Ors. ....Petitioners through Mr. K.S.Jaitley, Advocate Versus State of Haryana & Ors. .Respondents through Mr. R.D.Sharma, DAG, Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate with Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 1.12.2008 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Faridabad whereby the petitioner No.2's unit has been sealed and closed down. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at some length and the record perused. It transpires that the petitioners are manufacturing some plastic components at the site MCF-283, Gali No. 67, Sanjay Colony, Sector 22, Faridabad, which is notified as a 'residential locality'. It is obvious that the 'industrial activities' can not be permitted to be run in violation of the sanctioned zoning/Building Plans. The petitioners' grievance that the impugned action has been taken by the municipal authorities at the instance of their neighbours – the private respondents, also needs to be suitably addressed. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the manufacturing activities are being carried out by the petitioner from a residential premises, prima-facie, in violation of the Government notification dated 17.11.1991 and the Municipal Laws. At the same time, the authorities ought not to have sprung surprises with sudden locking of the premises, leaving no time for the petitioners to find out an alternative site and to shift their business which involves livelihood of more than thirty five persons. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3, however, submits that two months time was granted to the petitioners before the Civil Court but on their failure to shift to some other site that the impugned action has been taken. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes that they shall shift the activities to some other alternative site within four months. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that the petitioners have been running the industrial unit from the subject-premises for quite a long period and more than 35 persons, who are employed by them, shall also be deprived of their source of livelihood in the event of closure of the unit, I am of the considered view that some reasonable time needs to be granted to the petitioners to shift to an alternative site. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 to remove the seals from the premises of the petitioners forthwith and allow them to run the industrial unit from the same premises till 30.9.2009. However, the petitioners shall not use any generator set which may cause nuisance in the neighbourhood. This order shall not preclude the petitioners from seeking permission of the respondent – Municipal authorities for running the activities in question from the same premises, if so permissible under the Municipal Corporation Act or the Bye-laws framed thereunder. Dasti. Disposed of. May 05, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE