Punjab and Sind Bank vs Union Territory and Others

Mahavir Singh Chauhan, J.—The petitioner-Bank purchased Site No. 1101, Sector 11-C, Chandigarh, for Staff Training Residential

College of the bank but shifted its branch to that premises in September, 2002. As use of the residential premises for running a bank is not

permissible, the premises was resumed by Chandigarh Administration vide order dated 09.06.2009. Appeal and revision filed by the petitioner to

challenge the order of resumption having remained unsuccessful, petitioner approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 8109 of 2013

which is stated to be pending. However, in the meantime, petitioner approached the respondents for change of user of the premises so as to unable

it to run branch of the bank therein but copy of the representation so made by the petitioner has been forwarded by respondent No. 2 to

respondent No. 3 vide memorandum dated 12.03.2012 and said respondent has been requested to take immediate necessary action for removal

of boards, issuance of misuse notice and direct the petitioner to stop the misuse with immediate effect while stating that request made by the

petitioner for change of user has not been acceded to. The petitioner then made a representation for allotment of an alternative site to it for

construction of building to run the bank therefrom. However, petitioner''s request has been declined vide memorandum dated 25.07.2013

(Annexure P-7). To seek quashing of the memoranda dated 12.03.2012 (Annexure P-5) and 25.07.2013 (Annexure P-7), petitioner has

approached this Court by way of the instant Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the

petitioner has argued that the respondents have been allowing change of user to various professionals, such as, Architects, Barbers, Doctors,

Photographers etc. and have also been allotting plots to various organizations but in spite of that request of the petitioner for change of user and for

allotment of a plot has been declined and thereby the petitioner has been gravely discriminated against.

However, on hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the averments made in the petition, we are not inclined to interfere with

the afore-stated memoranda for the reason that learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any provision of law or policy or rules

permitting change of user of residential premises so as to permit commercial activity like a bank therein or any policy of the respondents entitling a

bank to preferential allotment of plot. Though, it is sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner-bank is rendering a public

service by providing banking facilities to 9,000 saving accounts holders, 4,000 customers having fixed deposit accounts, 150 customers having

current accounts, 80 customers having recurring deposit accounts, 800 locker accounts and 200 loan accounts but this contention has not

impressed us because the policies promulgated by Chandigarh Administration from time to time do not permit running of a bank in residential

premises and, even otherwise, allowing the prayer of the petitioner would amount to granting it a premium for violation of the rules of Chandigarh

Administration by running a bank in the residential premises. Acceptance of petitioner''s plea would also amount to pre-empting decision of the

pending Civil Writ Petition wherein resumption on the basis of misuser is under challenge.

The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.