M. Katju and R.S. Tripathi, JJ.

Standing counsel and Sri Pankaj Mittal may file counter-affidavit within three weeks.

2. Issue notice to Respondent No. 4 returnable at an early date.

3. The point raised in this writ petition is of great importance throughout the State of U.P. and perhaps in many other States as well. The grievance of the Petitioner is that commercial activities are being permitted in the residential area of Agra.

4. We have had occasion to deal with such kinds of complaints in earlier petitions which came up before us. For example in R.K. Mittal and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2002) 1 AWC 558, we have held that no commercial and industrial activity can be carried out in the areas earmarked for residential purpose in the NOIDA Master Plan. We are informed that in a large number of cities, e.g., Lucknow, Agra, Kanpur, etc., commercial and industrial activities are being carried on in the areas earmarked for residential purposes in the Master Plan of that city. In our opinion, this is wholly illegal. The rules have to be followed, otherwise the rule of law will collapse in the country. If there are rules, they must be obeyed, otherwise the rule should be