Siri Raj Sharma and Others vs State of Haryana and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioners are running schools in residential premises. They pray that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the Haryana Urban Development Authority and the other respondents to allow them to change the user of residential premises to the running of schools.

It is, undoubtedly, correct that in pursuance to a cabinet decision the Haryana Urban Development Authority has decided to permit change of user to a limited extent in case of residential premises. To illustrate, it has been permitted that 25% of the built up covered area of a building or 50 sq. meter, whichever is less, may be used, on payment of the prescribed fee for a purpose other than residence. In respect of different areas, different fee has been prescribed. However, change of user from residential to the running of schools would involve conversion of the complete building to a commercial site. It would also create difficulties for person living in the neighbourhood. The movement of traffic would be impleaded. There would be continuous noise. In view of these factors, we are not surprised that the respondents are not permitting the petitioners to change the user of the premises.

Mr. Mehtani submits that the action of the respondent is arbitrary. If a Lawyer can be allowed to open his office in the residential premises or a Doctor is allowed to run his clinic in the residential premises, there should be no objection to the petitioners running educational institutions.

The contention is misconceived. A Lawyer uses a small portion of his residence for study or conference with the clients. Similarly, a Doctor is permitted to use a small portion of his residence as ''a clinic''. However, in case of educational institutions the entire building is changed into a school. If the authorities have chosen not to permit such a change, the action is well founded.

Mr. Mehtani submits that certain other writ petitions involving change of user of residential premises are pending. He, however, concedes that no case of educational institutions is pending. Thus, the pendency of other writ petitions is of no consequence.

The writ petition is wholly lacking in merit. It is dismissed in limine.