CWP No. 354 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 354 of 2008 Date of Decision: 02.09.2008 Ved Parkash ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. J.C.Verma, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Meenakshi Verma, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Madhu Dayal, DAG Punjab for respondent No.1 Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for respondent No.3 **** T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral) This petition has been filed in public interest. It prays for a mandamus directing respondent No.2 Municipal Corporation, Amritsar to cancel the trade/commercial licence issued in favour of respondent No.3 and to direct removal/shifting of the factory of the said respondent away, from what according to the petitioner is a residential area, in which no industrial activity, can be carried on. The petitioner alleges that respondent no.3 has established and is running an industrial unit for cutting iron/iron rods, making gates, grills and shuttering by manual process, welding etc. All these activities, according to the petitioner, amount to making industrial use of the premises which is located in a residential area. The petitioner alleges that the use of CWP No. 354 of 2008 [2] the premises in occupation of respondent No.3, for the purpose mentioned above, is causing nuisance to the residents of the area, apart from the noise pollution. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3 Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, it is inter-alia, submitted that the said respondent has filed a civil suit for injunction in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, in which, the said Court had passed an order on 31.07.2007 restraining the Municipal Corporation from interfering with the business being carried on by the plaintiff (respondent no.3 herein) till such time, the period of licence issued in his favour did not expire. A copy of the interim order passed by the Civil Court enclosed with the counter affidavit shows that the licence was valid upto 31.3.2008. The injunction issued by the Civil Court, therefore, prevented the Corporation from interfering with the business of the plaintiff (respondent No.3 herein) till the said date. Although, the Corporation has preferred an appeal against the said order. there is admittedly no interim direction issued in the same. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2 Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, it further appears that it had received a renewal fee of the licence issued in favour of respondent No.3 in terms of a receipt marked Annexure R-3/3 issued on 21.03.2007. The said fee was for renewal of the licence issued in favour of respondent No.3 upto 31.3.2008. It is also evident from the said affidavit that the corporation had on receipt of complaints from the petitioner cancelled the renewal by an order dated 21.7.2007. This gave rise to an apprehension in the mind of the plaintiff that the corporation might interfere with his business, who then filed the civil suit mentioned earlier and obtained an injunction order on the basis of CWP No. 354 of 2008 [3] licence that stood renewed upto 31.3.2008 thereby entitling the said respondent to carry on his business till that date. Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Verma, argued that as on date, there is no valid licence in favour of respondent No.3, the same having been cancelled by order dated 3.7.2007, Even if the cancellation was ignored, argued Mr. Verma the same had expired with efflux of time on 31.3.2008. He submitted that once the licence issued in favour of respondent No.3 stood cancelled or had expired, the Corporation had no justification to permit respondent No.3 to continue with his business by its inaction. The Corporation could, therefore, contended by Mr. Verma, be directed to take appropriate action in the matter and shut down the unit by invoking the relevant provisions of Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'). On behalf of respondent No.3, it was, on the other hand, argued by Mr. Anil Chawla, that the street in which the business premises of the petitioner is situate, is not a residential area, as alleged by the petitioner. Relying upon certain photographs shown to us in the course of hearing, Mr. Chawla argued that the entire street in which respondent No.3 is holding a shop for carrying on his business activities, is a busy street, in which the owners are using their properties both for residential and commercial purposes. He further argued that even the petitioner is running three different establishments in the same street adjacent to the premises in the occupation of respondent No.3, for which the petitioner has no licence in his favour. Any action which the Corporation, may, therefore, be asked to take against respondent No.3, would be liable to be taken even against the petitioner's establishment, if such action is taken on the basis that the area CWP No. 354 of 2008 [4] was residential and no commercial activity in the same could be legally commenced or continued. It was further submitted that since the matter is pending before a competent Civil Court, this Court may not interfere in exercise of its public interest jurisdiction. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made at the bar and perused the record. It is not in dispute that respondent No.3 had a licence in his favour permitting him to carry on his activities in the premises in his occupation. It is also evident from the affidavit filed by the respondent Corporation and the order passed by the Civil Court that the said licence has since been cancelled. In any event, the said licence has not been renewed beyond 31.3.2008. Such being the position, the Corporation may be free to take appropriate action in accordance with law in case a representation to that effect is made to it by the petitioner herein. It will also be open to the corporation to take action suo-moto or at the instance of respondent No.3 against any other premises/establishments being used contrary to the provisions of the Act. Respondent No.3 too shall have the liberty to approach the Commissioner for action against the shops which the petitioner is alleged to be running in the residential area. If the representations are made, the Commissioner shall examine the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law expeditiously. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs. (T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE (SURYA KANT) 02.09.2008 JUDGE 'ravinder'