IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO.52742/2018 (LB - BMP) Between:
Doodaiah Military Hotel, No.1B, Shop No.1, Magadi Chord Road, MC Layout, Vijayanagar, Bangalore – 560 040.
Represented by its Proprietor, R.Lokesh, S/o K.Ramu, Aged 38 years, No.8, 8th Cross, Agrahara Dasarahalli, Magadi Main Road, Bangalore – 560 079. ... Petitioner (By Sri.S.K.Acharya, Advocate) And:
1. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, N.R. Square, Palike Soudha, 14th Cross, Chandra Layout, Bengaluru – 560 002.
2. The Medical Health Officer, Govindarajanagar Zone, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore – 560 001. …Respondents (By Sri.Kempanna, Advocate for R1) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned final notice/order dated 14.11.2018 issued by the R-2 vide Annexure – A and to declare the same as illegal and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner is stated to be running a Mess under the name and style of “Doddaiah Military Hotel” in shop No.1, Magadi Chord Road, Vijaynagar, Bengaluru and has challenged the notice at Annexure ‘A’ directing the petitioner to shift his business establishment within 7 days.
2. The petitioner states that he has obtained the necessary licence for the purpose of running food business and the said licence is valid till 11.7.2019 and the said licence has been produced at Annexure ‘B’. The petitioner further states that he has obtained a trade licence, copy of which is produced at Annexure ‘C’.
3. Petitioner states that the respondent-Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike has issued notices at Annexure ‘H’ and Annexure ‘J’. But, however, the time prescribed by respondents in the said notices being only 3 days, petitioner contends that time available to respond to the said notices was insufficient. It is further contended that though Annexure ‘A’ is in the nature of a notice, for all practical purposes it amounts to cancellation of his licence.
4. Sri.Kempanna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike states that the licence does not authorize the petitioner to prepare and supply the non-vegetarian food and the action of the petitioner is contrary to the terms of the licence.
5. In the light of the grievance made out by the petitioner and noting that the petitioner is ready to furnish a reply as regards the notices at Annexure ‘H’ and Annexure ‘J’ by producing necessary documents to substantiate his claim and also noticing that the petitioner possesses a licence, it would meet the interest of justice, if the petitioner is granted a final opportunity to respond to the notice issued by the respondent- Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike.
6. The notice, at Annexure ‘A’, is to be treated as a Show Cause Notice and the petitioner to submit his replies to the notices at Annexure ‘A’, Annexure ‘H’ and Annexure ‘J’ with necessary documents, to substantiate his claim. The said reply to be submitted to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike authorities, within a period of 10 days from today. The petitioner may also be afforded an opportunity of oral hearing.
7. The petitioner is to be present in the office of the Medical Health Officer on 04.02.2019 at 11.00 a.m. to avail of the opportunity of personal hearing.
In the light of the observations made above, petition is disposed of.
In the interregnum no precipitative action to be taken by the respondent-authority till passing of orders after hearing the petitioner.
bkp Sd/- JUDGE