- (1.) THE petitioners are resident of Shaheed Sewa Singh Thikriwala Nagar, Patiala and had approached this Court in purported public interest vide this petition. They had, inter alia, prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the official respondents to stop the commercial activity being carried out at the instance of respondent No.6 in the residential area (Shaheed Sewa Singh Thikriwala Nagar, Patiala) and to remove illegal encroachments/violations. A direction was also prayed for against the respondents to stop the functioning of the College i.e. Sri Guru Harkrishan College of Management and Technology and also a High School, which was being run in the middle of residential colony, over a site which was indeed allotted to set up a Primary School.
(2.) PURSUANT to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents filed their counter -affidavits/written statements respectively, which, we would refer to and deal with at an appropriate stage in the judgment.
(3.) SINCE the instant writ petition was filed in the year 2008 and was monitored by this Court for almost six years, in the interregnum, there have been multiple developments pursuant to certain orders/directions issued by this Court from time to time. However, we need not dilate upon those, in context of the questions which have eventually evolved for determination by this Court. So we proceed. On 19.07.2013, the matter was taken up by this Court and on hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court had passed an order, which reads as thus: "There appears to be an apparent contradiction in the stands being taken by the Improvement Trust, Patiala in different affidavits. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the affidavit filed on 10.08.2010, the stand taken was that neither CLU was recommended nor could it be so recommended. The stand of the Punjab Government was that the Improvement Trust recommended CLU and they accepted the same. Thereafter, the stand, which is sought to be taken, is that it is a residential colony and CLU was recommended, though it was for the State of Punjab to accept the same or not. The question is whether did the Improvement Trust recommended CLU or not and if so, could it so recommend. We, thus, call upon the Chairman of the Improvement Trust, Patiala to remain personally present in the Court on the next date of hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that other than the three plots in question, Plot Nos.577, 578 and 593, there is no other plot where commercial activity is being run. In these three plots, respondent No.6 is running the business of printing press, a television channel and full -fledged hostel. We are, thus, of the view that the crucial question to be examined is whether there was any irregularity or illegality in the change of the land use of those three plots because if the CLU stands, then respondent No.6 cannot be faulted with. Another aspect urged by the learned senior counsel for respondent No.6, on instructions, is that the petitioners are specifically targeting the said respondent as there are other plots where commercial activities are being carried out and that he will file an affidavit stating out where else commercial activity is being carried out with relevant photographs. The needful be done within two weeks. He contradicts the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioners by claiming that both commercial and residential activities are permissible in the locality. List on 21.08.2013.";