JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.6667 and 10913 of 2007 (MRD Model School, Manimajra, U.T. Chandigarh and another Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others). The facts have been taken from Civil Writ Petition No.6667 of 2007. 2. Prayer made in the petition is quash letters, Annexure P- 11 and P-12 and for issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondent-U.T. Administration to consider the case of the petitioner for allotment of a site for School in accordance with the Scheme issued by U.T.Administration. 3. Order, Annexure P-11, is issued by Additional Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh in view of the direction issued by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.8094 of 1997 to the effect that all schools running in residential building area were to close by the end of that session. The petitioner-School, however, was allowed to continue till Session 2005-06 subject to submitting an affidavit that it will close by 31.3.2006 positively. The petitioner- School accordingly was called upon to furnish this affidavit through Annexure P-11. Through Annexure P-12, the petitioner-School was issued notice to stop running the school from residential building. In case, the petitioner failed to do so, the residential building was to be sealed. The petitioner-School was also directed not to enroll the students 2007 onwards. 4. The petitioner-School was established by Dhiman Education Development Society, Manimajra, in the year 1969. The Society had made application for allotment of a site. It is stated that the Chief Commissioner had announced the allotment of a plot at nominal rates under the Notified Committee, Manimajra. The strength of the school is stated to be 426 and is upto middle standard. The School was granted permanent recognition. The School also made representation to the President, Notified Area Committee, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh for allotment of site. Thereafter, reminders were also sent. Reference is made to representation filed by the Registered Society for allotment of land for the school building and also to the writ petition, which was filed before this Court. Pursuant thereto, U.T.Administration has framed a scheme known as ‘Allotment of Land to Education Institution (School) etc. on lease hold basis in Union Territory, Chandigarh, Scheme 1996’. The management of the petitioner-School in Manimajra was not eligible to submit such application. Pursuant thereto, U.T.Administration has framed a scheme known as ‘Allotment of Land to Education Institution (School) etc. on lease hold basis in Union Territory, Chandigarh, Scheme 1996’. The management of the petitioner-School in Manimajra was not eligible to submit such application. Instead of considering the case of allotment of school site to the petitioner-School, the Chandigarh Administration issued the impugned notices for closure of the School. The Society accordingly was left with no option but to approach this Court, seeking direction to consider their case for allotment of school site. The said writ petition was withdrawn to file a review application in Civil Writ Petition No.8094 of 1997, pursuant to which the directions were issued to close the school running from residential premises. The said application was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner-School to pursue its remedy independently. The petitioner accordingly has filed the present writ petitions. 5. In Civil Writ Petition No.10913 of 2007, the petitioner- School has challenged the notice seeking to withdraw the recognition granted to the School. 6. Though the Court has issued notice of motion in these cases but the counsel for the respondents has made reference to an order dated 19.3.2007, dismissing Civil Writ Petition No.4105 of 2007, (Adarsh Vidya Mandir and others Vs. Chandigarh Administration and others), containing similar grounds of challenge. 7. The respondents have filed reply, making reference to order passed in Civil Writ Petition No.7923 of 1989 titled Sat Pal Verma Vs. Advisor to the Administrator, decided on 3.12.2001, wherein it is directed that the use of residential/semi-residential premises, shop-cum-flat, shop-cum-offices in Chandigarh for running educational Institutions amounts to misuse. The Administration was directed to take a policy decision in this regard for running of the schools from such premises. Reference is also made to order passed in CWP No.8094 of 1997, wherein this Court had directed the Administration to constitute High Power Committee to take appropriate decision with regard to unauthorized running of schools from the residential buildings. The private school owners had statedly assured the Administration that they will make alternative arrangements, if they are given a grace period of one year. Many school owners had filed affidavits, giving assurance. The High Powered Committee had recommended closure of all schools running from residential premises in the sectorial grid whereas the schools in residential premises in Manimajra were allowed one more year. Many school owners had filed affidavits, giving assurance. The High Powered Committee had recommended closure of all schools running from residential premises in the sectorial grid whereas the schools in residential premises in Manimajra were allowed one more year. Thus, sufficient time was granted and there was no scope of any further concession. The impugned decision, therefore, is justified on these grounds. 8. As per the report given by the Committee, the present school of the petitioner is a double storied and caters to 700 students in an area of 21 marlas with centre courtyard of 21’x43'. There are two staircases of 23ft.3 inches and 2ft.10 inches in width, which are not as per the norms. There are 30 rooms of size 12 ft. x 15ft in the school. There are only 3 W.Cs, which are undersized and inadequate. The school is surrounded by residential buildings. The present petitioner-School is in fact having three different buildings, two of them are in the area of 200 Sq.Yards and 450 Sq.Yards. All the three buildings are of very small in size, without any proper light and ventilation. The strength of the students is 200, 450 and 700 respectively. The width of the staircase is very uncomfortable and the class rooms are not as per the standard whereas W.Cs are undersized. There is no adequate play ground or open spaces. Based on the recommendation, the issue of allowing the petitioner to continue with the school was discussed and it was decided that the school can apply for play-way status i.e. only for students upto the age of 6 years, if eligible. The impugned orders accordingly are justifiable. 9. The respondents have also placed on record the order passed in Adarsh Vidya Mandir’s case (supra), where the similar or identical orders were impugned. The allegation of pick and choose policy on the part of the respondents was also made and all similar contentions are raised by counsel for the petitioner in the present case as were raised in the above noted case. The Division Bench of this Court, however, expressed themselves as under:- “We express our inability to accept the contentions, raised by counsel for the petitioners. Pursuant to orders, passed in CWP No.8094 of 1997, Vinod Kumar Jain Vs. The Division Bench of this Court, however, expressed themselves as under:- “We express our inability to accept the contentions, raised by counsel for the petitioners. Pursuant to orders, passed in CWP No.8094 of 1997, Vinod Kumar Jain Vs. State of Haryana and others, reference whereto has been made in the impugned order, as also in the public notice, a direction has been issued to the petitioners to stop running schools in residential buildings w.e.f. 31.3.2007. The impugned notice is based upon directions, issued in the aforementioned writ petition, pursuant whereto a high powered committee was constituted to take a decision for shifting/closing of schools, being run in residential buildings in the city of Chandigarh. The high powered committee, in a meeting held on 28.2.2005 took a decision that all schools, running in residential buildings in the city of Chandigarh, shall be closed at the end of academic session 2005-2006, i.e. 30.4.2006. The aforementioned decision led to the issuance of public notice, Annexure P-10A. The pleas, raised by the petitioners in their representation to the respondents, were considered by the high powered committee. As the petitioners are admittedly running schools prior to Mani Majra being included in the area of Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, would be irrelevant. Educational institutions must not be allowed to run from residential premises and, therefore, we find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned notices/order. The contention that the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh has allowed use of residential buildings beyond 31.3.2007 is belied by the impugned order, dated 8.2.2006 (Annexure P-10). The said order has bee issued by the Additional Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. It is, thus, apparent that resolution, relied upon by the petitioners, is no longer in operation. It would be necessary to mention that the controversy has been pending before the Chandigarh Administration, as also the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh since 2004 and on one pretext or other, the petitioners have managed to perpetuate the misuse of residential premises. In view of what has been noticed herein above, the present petition is dismissed.” 10. In view of the above, no case is made out for deviating from the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court. In fact, the orders have been passed pursuant to the direction issued by this Court and those can not be allowed to be circumvented in any manner by passing any different order in the present or any other case. In fact, the orders have been passed pursuant to the direction issued by this Court and those can not be allowed to be circumvented in any manner by passing any different order in the present or any other case. 11. Both the writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. ------------------