IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO.14932/2019 (LB-BMP) Between:
Hardcastle Restaurants Pvt Ltd A Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 Having its registered office at:
1001-1002, 10th Floor, Tower-3 Indiabulls Finance Centre Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400013 Represented by Mr Mathew Chandy Authorised Representative and Signatory Also at:
No.43, 44, 45 and 46 Brigade Road Bengaluru – 560 001. …Petitioner (By Sri.Nikhilesh Rao M and Smt.Anisha Aatresh, Advocates) And 1. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Department of Health, Shantinagar Division, Austin Town, Bengaluru – 560 025 Represented by its Commissioner.
2. The Medical Officer of Health, Shanthinagar Division, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru – 560 025.
3. State of Karnataka Department of Urban Development Vikasa Soudha Bengaluru – 560 001. Represented by its Chief Secretary ….Respondents (By Sri.H.Devendrappa, Advocate for R.1 and 2 Sri.M.A.Subramani, HCGP for R.3) This Writ Petition is filed praying to quash the impugned endorsement/order dated 08.03.2019 (At Annexure-A) issued by the respondent No.2 and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner, running a commercial establishment and was issued with a trade license, has filed the present writ petition challenging the endorsement at Annexure-A whereby the application filed by the petitioner for renewal of trade license came to be rejected and the trade license issued to the petitioner in the year 2018-19 has also been terminated on the ground that the consent letter of the landowner has not been furnished. In the light of the circumstances narrated in para No.3 of the writ petition, the petitioner states that he was not in a position to furnish the consent letter from the landowner as his relationship was only with one Mr.Ashraf Ali, who had in turn entered into an agreement with landowner.
2. The petitioner states that the endorsement is illegal and further submits that even otherwise on the merits of the matter, the Division Bench of this Court in the orders passed in W.A.No.2570/2009 and W.P.No.9574/2010 on 25.01.2011 has observed in para No.8 that the requirement of owner furnishing a consent letter is only a procedural requirement and could not be insisted in all circumstances. Further, in the Writ Appeal Court has pointed out that under Section 353(3) the owner or occupier could apply to the Commissioner for license. Accordingly, taking note of the facts stated in the petition including the arrangements between the petitioner and Ashraf Ali and that the petitioner, as such, did not have any direct relationship with the landowner, it would be appropriate to observe that in the peculiar facts of the present case, insistence by the respondent No.1/BBMP on the petitioner to furnish consent letter from the landowner is not legally sustainable. Accordingly, the endorsement at Annexure- A is set-aside.
Consequently, the application filed for renewal of trade license by the petitioner, which is pending consideration before respondent No.1/BBMP is to be considered on its merits without insisting for a consent letter by the landowner.
Accordingly, subject to the above observations, this petition is disposed of.
NBM Sd/- JUDGE