Ranjit Singh Sarkaria, J. - (1.) THE action of petitioner, State Bank of Patiala, to approach this Court through present writ petition for permitting it to carry on business of banking from the residential premises in Guru Tegh Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar, would sound not only inappropriate but an illegal approach as well. A Bank approaching the Court, seeking permission to continue business in violation and by misuse of the residential premises would sound unacceptable. One could expect the owner of the premises to make such unfair and unreasonable approach for using the residential premises for commercial purposes but a Bank, which has all the resources at its command, would act to approach the Court for such a misuse is highly unjustified. Satnam is the owner of House No. 457, Guru Tegh Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar. The petitioner, State Bank of Patiala, was earlier running its Branch from House No. 301, Guru Tegh Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar since 19.10.1983. Satnam Singh leased House No. 457, Ground Floor, to the petitioner Bank in October 2005. The petitioner Bank since then has shifted to House No. 457, where it is carrying on its banking business activities. Satnam Singh, owner of the house, had filed an application before Municipal Corporation for change of user but his application statedly has not been decided so far.
(2.) THE Municipal Corporation issued a notice under Section 269(1) of the Municipal Corporation Act to the petitioner Bank and owner of the house (Satnam Singh) on 19.6.2006. The petitioner filed reply on 23.6.2006. Satnam Singh, owner, filed an appeal against the said notice in the Court of Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. Reference is made to a writ petition filed by one Sanjay Malhotra before this Court by way of public interest, seeking writ of mandamus directing official respondents to ensure that all commercial establishments run by the respondents from the residential premises located in Guru Tegh Bahadur Nagar be removed forthwith. Satnam Singh, owner of the house from where the petitioner Bank is running, was also impleaded as respondent No. 16. Petitioner Bank is impleaded as respondent No. 7. The Municipal Corporation filed a written statement and is alleged to have contested the claim made in the said writ petition. This petition was pending adjudication, when the petitioner approached this Court. In the meanwhile, Satnam Singh withdrew his appeal, which he would attribute to the fact that similar controversy was under consideration in the writ petition filed by Sanjay Malhotra as referred to above. Respondent No. 3, Municipal Corporation, has directed the closure of banking business being run from House No. 457 vide its order dated 16.6.2011. This is termed as totally illegal and arbitrary order and the Bank has accordingly filed this writ petition.
(3.) WHILE issuing notice of motion, operation of this order was stayed on 4.7.2011.;