IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1108 of 2011 Ravinder Singh & others Vs. State of Haryana & others Present: Mr.P.S.Jammu, Advocate for the petitioners. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Since the issue would relate to disputed question of fact whether the area where the petitioners admittedly carrying out the commercial activities is a commercial area or a residential area. It would not be appropriate to determine the same in exercise of writ jurisdiction. I am inclined to take this view, especially in view of the earlier directions issued by this court through Annexure P-3 for stopping the commercial activities in residential area. The submission by the counsel for the petitioners that the activity, which, the petitioners are performing, concededly falls in commercial area cannot be so determined on the basis of documents placed in writ court. It will have to be decided on the basis of evidence which is required to be tested. Accordingly, it would not be appropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners may have their alternative remedy, if any, including filing of a civil suit for the same relief. Dismissed. January 20, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE