IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH 1. LPA No. 1051 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 21, 2011 Andhra Bank …Appellant Versus State of Punjab ..Respondents 2. LPA No. 2165 of 2011 (O&M) Harinder Pal Singh and another …Appellants Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate for the appellant (in LPA No. 1051 of 2011) Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate for the appellant (in LPA No. 2165 of 2011) Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Rajesh Girdhar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 6 to 9. Mr. H.S. Bajwa, Advocate for the applicant-respondent 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This order shall dispose of two appeals filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent namely, LPA No. 1051 of 2011 and LPA No. 2165 of 2011 as they are directed against the common interlocutory order dated 05.04.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge issuing interim directions to Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana to ensure that no commercial activities are allowed to be carried out in the residential house. Writ Petitioner-respondent Nos. 6 to 9 were at liberty to record day-to-day movements and submit the details on the date fixed before the learned Single Judge. The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana was to be held personally liable if the directions were violated. The learned Single Judge also directed the appellant-bank to give an undertaking by way of an affidavit that the Branch of the Bank would be shifted to authorized or commercial area and in that case the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana might allow the bank to operate from the premise till 31.07.2011. 2. Banking upon some documents placed on record vide CM No. 6219 of 2011, learned counsel for the appellant-Bank has argued that the area of the appellant-Bank has already been declared as commercial area on the ground floor whereas the first floor is the residential area. Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the Corporation has explained these documents by stating that for the purposes of collecting the revenue in the shape of house tax, the area has been recorded irrespective of noticing the violation of the Rule. According to learned counsel, the area continues to be the residential area and its nature has not been changed merely by charging them house tax. 3. Be that as it may, the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer any legal infirmity and matter is sent back to the learned Single Judge for deciding the controversy on merit. However, we extend the date of vacating the premise by the appellant-Bank by 30.01.2012 subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the learned Single Judge. All the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties in the present appeals may be advanced before the Bench hearing the writ petition relatable to this appeal. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the controversy and none of our interlocutory order be continued as such. The parties are directed through their counsels to be present before the learned Single Judge on the date fixed. 4. Accordingly, the appeals stand disposed of. 5. Keeping in view the disposal of the appeals, we do not wish to pass any order on the application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. 6. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE December 21, 2011 Atul