BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner - -M/s Bharti Airtel Limited seeks quashing of the action of the Estate officer, HUDA, Karnal whereby the Remote Switching Unit (RSU) operated by it from a residential premises, bearing H. No. 1687, Sector 7, Karnal, has been sealed.

(2.) THE residential plot No. 1687 in Sector 7, Urban Estate, Karnal was allotted by Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) to one Smt. Raj Jain, wife of Parmod Kumar Jain, on 2nd July, 1990 and was later on transferred in favour of one Pawan Kumar Duggal, s/o Y. K. Duggal on 25th September, 2007. A residential house has been constructed upon the said plot after getting the building plans sanctioned from HUDA authorities. It appears that the Petitioner -company took the afore -said house on lease and later on purchased it from Pawan Kumar Duggal. After taking the said house on lease, the Petitioner -company opened a 'telephone exchange' styled as Bharati Tele Limited and installed its Remote Switching Unit (RSU) there which, according to the Respondents, is a 'commercial activity' and cannot be permitted to be run from a residential premises. There is no denial to the fact that the subject premises is not being used for residential purposes. The Respondents have accordingly taken action for resumption of the site under Section 17 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (in short the 1977 Act) and are stated to have sealed the same in order to prevent its further misuse by the occupier.

(3.) THE Respondents have filed their counter affidavit and have controverted the Petitioner's claim, pointing out that this Court has already issued directions to stop 'commercial activities' from the residential areas by using coercive means like disconnection of electricity/water/sewerage facility etc. It is explained that even after the electricity supply was disconnected, the Petitioner continued to operate its Remote Switching Unit by using a generator set. Lot of complaints were received from the neighbourhood as the use of generator set was causing noise and air pollution in the area, due to which there was no option but to seal the premises. It is denied that the activities being carried out by the Petitioner from the residential premises are purely commercial and that the disputed premises has already been resumed, - -vide an order dated 6th January, 2006.