ORAL ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for direction to quash and set aside the order dated 23-02-2022 and further direction to open the seal over the premises in question, which was applied by the respondent- Corporation on 18-12-2021.

2. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No.1 is Chartered Accountant by profession and as the premises in question was being residential premises being utilized partially for his profession. Usage of such premises for the purpose of his profession was to the knowledge of the respondent- Corporation and therefore, the Corporation had accordingly issued Tax bill for two separate purposes namely for residential purpose and for non-residential purpose.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that action of the respondent to seal the premises is also highhanded as only notice on 10- 03-2021 was issued and thereafter, straightway on 18-12-2021, the seal was applied. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that there was no need for the respondent- Authority to take highhanded action especially considering the case of the petitioners that the premises was used for print purpose, which is permissible even as per the Comprehensive General Development Control Regulations-2017 (CGDCR). Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to give an Undertaking to this Court and has accordingly filed Undertaking to the effect that the petitioner no.1 will use the area ad-measuring only 30 square meters for his professional purpose, while rest of the area will be used for the residential purpose. It is therefore, submitted that the seal of the premises may be removed and the order be set aside.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Pratik Hareshkumar Shah v/s. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation passed in First Appeal No.6140 of 2019 dated 21-12-2021 to contend that the premises which is utilized for the purpose of residence as well as the Commercial, partly has to be treated as premises utilized for the residential purpose and tax is required to be levied accordingly. Learned Advocate for the petitioners has also referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Jayendra Lagharbhai Makwana v/s. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation passed in Special Civil Application No.1185 of 2022 dated 31-01-2022 contending that in case of practising Advocate in the flat, where the part of the premises was being used for the residential purpose, this Court had interfered and permitted the usage as such.

5. As against this, learned Advocate for the respondent- Corporation has drawn attention of this Court to the Affidavit in reply firstly disputed the contention of the petitioners that only part premises is being utilized for the purpose of profession of Chartered Accountant, but in fact the entire premises was being utilized for the purpose of profession. Learned Advocate also submitted that action of sealing the premises was not an immediate action without notice, but notices were issued not only to the petitioners, but also to those other occupants of the same premises, who were putting the premises for usage other then residential purpose and all of them have been noticed and upon verification by physical visiting of the premises found continuing the usage despite the notice, the seal has been applied.

6. Learned Advocate for the respondent- Corporation has drawn attention of this Court to the Comprehensive General Development Control Regulations-2017 (CGDCR) applicable and pointed out to Table No.6.3, which prescribed Use Permitted in each category. It is submitted that flat of the petitioners false in classification of Dwelling-3 (DW-3), where the uses prescribed in Column-3 is for the purpose of Apartment, Hostel, Dharamshala, Pre-school and Affordable Housing. It is submitted that readi