IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1085 OF 2008 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. Dr. K.O. Mammen S/o. Late Sri. K.M. Oomen Aged about 76 years, 10, Walton Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
2. Mrs. I. Mathias, W/o. Late Sri. Edward Mathias Aged about 87 years, 1, Walton Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
3. Mr. R.Krishna Rao Manay, S/o. Late K. Rama Rao Manay, Aged about 68 years, 2/1, Walton Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
4. Lyndhurst Apartment Owners Association, No.3, Walton Road, Bangalore – 560 001. Represented by :
(i) Mrs. Sadana Sanjeev, W/o. Mr. Sanjeev, Secretary, Lyndhurst Apartment Owners Association, Aged about 49 years, Lyndhurst Apartment, No.3, Walton Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
(ii) Mrs. Gitanjali Maini, W/o. Mr. Sandeep Maini, Treasurer, Lyndhurst Apartment Owners Association, Aged 45 years, Lyndhurst Apartment, No.3, Walton Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
5. S. Ravindran, S/o. S.Rajan, Aged about 61 years, 6, Walton Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
6. K.S. Ramaswamy, S/o. Late Subba Rao Ramaswamy, Aged about 53 years, 7/1, Walton Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
7. Mr. Jacob Mammen S/o. Late K.C. Mammen, Aged about 45 years, 12, Walton Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
8. Mr. Roy Mammen, S/o. Late K.C. Mammen, Aged about 38 years, 12, Walton Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
9. Mr. Karthik Manay, S/o. R. Krishna Rao Manay, Aged about 38 years, 2/1, Walton Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
10. Mrs. Bharati Govindraj, W/o. Late B.K. Govindraj, Aged about 59 years, 13, Walton Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
... PETITIONERS (BY SHRI. K.S. PONNAPPA, FOR M/S. CREST LAW PARTNERS, ADVOCATE.) AND:
1. The Commissioner of Police, Infantry Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
2. The Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Corporation Main Office, N.R. Square, Bangalore – 560 002.
3. The Joint Director Town Planning, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Corporation Main Office, N.R. Square, Bangalore – 560 002.
4. The Health Officer (East), Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Corporation Main Office, N.R. Square, Bangalore – 560 002.
5. The Executive Engineer (Shantinagar No.2), Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Corporation Main Office, N.R. Square, Bangalore – 560 002.
6. The Excise Commissioner, Vakkaligara Bhavana, K.R.Circle, Bangalore – 560 027.
7. Mr. M. Vinayak, Father’s name not known, Major, Owner of Property No.11 (Old No.4) Walton Road, Shantala Nagar, Bangalore – 560 001.
8. Mr. Sunil K. Vasanth, Father’s name not known Major, Owner of Property No.11/1 (Old No.4/1) Walton Road, Shantala Nagar, Bangalore – 560 001.
9. Cyber Wines, Represented by its Managing Director, Walton Road, Shantala Nagar, Bangalore – 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. I.THARANATH POOJARY, AGA FOR R.1 AND R.6, SHRI. H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R.2 TO R.5, SHRI. K. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SR. COUNSEL APPEARING FOR R.8, SHRI. K.H.JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R.9, R.7 – SERVED.) ---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO :
CALL FOR RECORDS FROM RESPONDENTS NOS. 2 TO 8 IN RELATION TO SANCTION OF PLANS FOR THE STRUCTURES BEING PUT ON SITE NO.11 AND 11/1, WALTON ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE.
RESTRAIN R.2 TO 6 FROM ISSUING ANY LICENSE OR PERMISSION OR GRANT TO RUN A RESTAURANT, PUB OR ANY ESTABLISHMENT SERVING ALCOHOL, FOOD OR DRINK IN ANY PREMISES IN WALTON ROAD, BANGALORE, INCLUDING PREMISES BEING 11 AND 11/1, WALTON ROAD, BANGALORE, AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Called out for final hearing.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd to 5th respondents, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the 1st and 6th respondents, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for 7th and 8th respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the 9th respondent.
3. The main grievance of the petitioner appears to be that the 7th to 9th respondents were running restaurant-cum- bar in their respective premises without obtaining requisite licence. Another allegation made in the petition is about the illegality of certain construction carried out on premises No. 11 and 11/1. As far as the respondent No.9 is concerned, there is an objection filed placing reliance on CL-2 licence granted in the name and style of ‘Cyber Wines’. A copy of the licence has been annexed to the objections.
4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the 7th and 8th respondents states that the tenant of the said respondents was running bar and restaurant in the schedule property. He states that now the tenant has vacated and today there is no bar and restaurant in the schedule property. He states that, whenever the 7th and 8th will let out the schedule premises to any third party, they will ensure that the said third party will not carry on business of running bar and restaurant without obtaining a requisite licence.
5. Therefore, as of today, no relief can be addressed in this petition.
6. As far as the illegality of construction is concerned, there are vague assertions in the writ petition and some allegations have been made in the correspondence made by the petitioners.
7. If the case of the petitioners is that, any illegal construction has been carried out by any of the respondents, the petitioners can make a specific representation to the BBMP, which shall be considered in accordance with law by the BBMP.
Therefore, subject to the above observations, no relief can be granted in the petition. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE Mgn/-