By the Court.—Pursuant to order of date passed on recall application, the writ petition is restored to its original number.

2. Heard Sri J.N. Sharma, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Ghaziabad Development Authority and learned Standing Counsel for State.

3. Dispute in all these writ petitions involve common question of facts and law, though with minor variations, therefore, all these matters have been heard together and are being decided with this common judgment.

4. For narration of facts, we propose to give relevant facts involved in all these writ petitions separately and thereafter deal with issues raised in these writ petitions collectively.

5. Writ Petition No. 19837 of 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘first petition’) has been filed by two petitioners, one Dr. Santosh Dixit and another Branch Manager, State Bank of India. They have assailed notice dated 16.3.2010 (Annexure-5 to writ petition) issued by Ghaziabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘G.D.A.’) to petitioners informing that notice under Section 26(2) of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘U.P. Act, 1973’) was already served upon petitioners and published in daily newspaper ‘Hindustan’ and they should stop commercial activities of running ‘Bank’ in disputed premises, else appropriate action would be taken under U.P. Act, 1973. Second impugned notice dated 5.4.2010 (Annexure 1 to writ petition) issued by G.D.A. stating that petitioners are running commercial establishment i.e. ‘Bank’ in the premises sanctioned for residential purpose i.e. D-12D, Kaushambi, District Ghaziabad, they should stop commercial use of disputed premises, else disputed premises shall be sealed under Section 28-A(1) of U.P. Act, 1973.

6. Petitioner-1 is owner of disputed premises and has let-out it to petitioner No. 2 State Bank of India for running a branch of Bank in the said premises under lease deed executed on 1.3.2009. It is for a period of 15 years. Bank is running banking activities in the aforesaid premises. A show-cause notice was issued by G.D.A. on 25.6.2009 under Section 26/27 of U.P Act, 1973 which was replied by petitioner-1 on 31.7.2009 stating that similar banking activities are continuing in other residential areas of Kaushambi and other residential colonies of G.D.A., therefore, it should not be disturbed, and, if any, conversion charge is payable, petitioner-1 is ready to pay the same. Petitioners also informed G.D.A. in respect to area under New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as NOIDA), question, whether banks and other commercial activities can be allowed to continue in residential areas is under consideration in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 9706 of 2002 (R.K. Mittal and others v. State of U.P. and others) arising from the judgment dated 9.1.2002 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 36709 of 2001, wherein Supreme Court has permitted ‘banking activities’ to continue but has stopped other ‘commercial activities’.

7. Writ Petition No. 20881 of 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘second petition’) has been filed by two petitioners, one Gagan Nijhawan and another Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Surya Nagar, District Ghaziabad. There also facts are similar except that it is in respect to premise No. C-22, 1st Floor, Surya Nagar, District Ghaziabad, where under the lease deed dated 23.12.2008, State Bank of India’s branch is running at the aforesaid premises.

8. Writ Petition No. 34137 of 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘third petition’) has been filed by single petitioner, Amar Pal Singh in respect to premise No. C-24, Sector 23, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad, where at also a branch of State Bank of India is running and petitioner has said that under a compounding scheme launched by G.D.A. in 2002, it has also d