IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10273 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:08.09.2011 Mahesh Kumar Sareen son of Shri Lahori Ram, resident of EJ-207, Chahar Bagh, Police Station Division No.4, Jalandhar, District Jalandhar. ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab, through Secretary, Department of Local Bodies, Civil Secretariat, Punjab, Chandigarh, and another. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Jatinder Kumar Puri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Navdeep Sukhna, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Ishtbir Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner challenges the sealing of the premises at Unit No.15 and 22 for what the Municipal Corporation has perceived to be necessary in obedience of the order of this Court in CWP No.21491 of 2008. The petitioner's contention is that his shop is in a mixed zone and he is not engaged in any activity which could be treated as in violation of any of the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act. At an earlier occasion, when the petitioner apprehended threat of sealing of the premises by a notice dated 09.02.2011 received by him from the Civil Writ Petition No.10273 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - respondent, he appears to have filed an appeal to the Additional District and Sessions Judge at Jalandhar, by the Corporation warning him of action for sealing the premises. The said appeal was dismissed as not competent. Subsequently when the premises were actually sealed in purported exercise of the power for giving effect to the order of the High Court in CWP No.21491 of 2008, the petitioner challenges that action before this Court in the instant writ petition, principally on the grounds: (i) the order the High Court does not contemplate a situation that would warrant sealing of the premises; (ii) there is no power for the Executive Engineer to seal the premises in the manner done. 2. In the course of arguments when I directed the counsel for the Municipal Corporation to spell out the position under which the action has been taken, the counsel states that the Corporation was giving effect to the order of this Court in the above writ petition. I have seen the copy of the order as produced before this Court which shows that the Court was making direction for removal of the illegal/unauthorized factories from the residential areas. The Court has given a direction to the Municipal Corporation to ensure that all the enterprises are dealt with in accordance with law. If a property is held in mixed one for carrying on an activity for commercial purpose, it cannot prima facie mean that there is an unbridled licence given to the Corporation to seal the premises. The Court's order inevitably states that the action of the Corporation shall be in accordance with law. Unless a specific violation of any of the provisions of the Act made out against the petitioner, it shall not be possible to seal the premises. I have not been shown any Civil Writ Petition No.10273 of 2011 (O&M) - 3 - specific violation of any provision of law except the contention that the petitioner is carrying on manufacturing activity in the premises, as even the letterhead of the petitioner would show him as a manufacturer-cum- trader in all types of fans and home appliances. If there is any activity that the petitioner is engaged in, which constitutes violation of any provision of the Act in a mixed zone, the respondents shall be at liberty to take appropriate action. The sealing of the premises would be indefensible, when the right to carry on a trade or business is a fundamental freedom enshrined under Article 19 of the Constitution. The reasonable restriction that the Constitution envisages must be sanctioned by law. The petitioner will have the liberty to carry on his trade till the petitioner is put to notice of any particular violation of the Act and any form of restriction is clamped on the petitioner's activity. The mandate shall be, therefore, to unseal the premises forthwith with the liberty of action to the respondents as provided above. 3. The writ petition is ordered on the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 08.09.2011 sanjeev