IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.50415 OF 2014 (LB-BMP) Between:
Mohammadiya Trust (Reg) No.64, 2nd Cross, 5th Main 7th Sector HSR Layout Bommanahalli Bangalore 560 068. Represented by its Secretary Sri. Barakathulla Son of Abdul Razaq Aged about 40 years Represented by his Authrorized Signatory Sri. Mohammed Javeed Son of Sri. Mohammed Sayeed Aged about 36 years. …Petitioner (By Sri. Janardhana.G., Advocate) And:
1. The Commissioner BBMP Hudson Circle Bangalore-560 002.
2. The Joint Commissioner BBMP, Bommanahalli Begur Hobli Bangalore-560 068. …Respondents (By Sri. I.G. Gachchinmath, Advocate) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the directions issued by the respondents under Annexure-H dated 09.09.2014 and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner who is stated to be a registered Trust has challenged the order dated 09.09.2014 at Annexure-‘H’, whereby permission has been declined to use the property for religious purpose with a further direction that property has to be used for residential purpose.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order does not assign reasons as per law and it is not a speaking order. He further states that the petitioner’s Trust was carrying on religious activities in the property bearing Municipal No.900/43/1/24, Venkoji Rao Khane in Corporation Ward No.189, Hongasandra, Bommanahalli Range, Bangalore for sometime. It is stated that there are certain dispute inter se between the petitioner Trust and another charitable Trust i.e. Masjid-e-Bilal in O.S.No.2878/2013.
3. It is further submitted that at the instance of said Masjid-e-Bilal, respondent authorities have passed the impugned order at Annexure-‘H’.
4. It is contended that there was no notice before passing the order at Annexure-‘H’. The learned counsel for the respondent- BBMP submits that they have acted on the basis of the complaint by local residents and that there are several disputes pending regarding the affairs of the petitioners’ Trust.
5. It is noted that the contention that no notice was issued before passing the impugned order remained uncontroverted. Mere complaint by itself may not be sufficient to issue the order at Anneuxre-‘H’. However, noticing that there was no opportunity to hear the petitioner and noticing that the petitioner has been conducting such religious activities at the same place since 2012, any order passed by the respondent-BBMP ought to have afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The order passed by the respondent-BBMP concerned must assign reasons which enables the respondent-BBMP to prohibit conduct of religious activities of the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondent to take action in accordance with law. However, after affording an opportunity on personal hearing of the petitioner. Contentions raised by the respondent are kept open.
7. The Learned counsel for the respondent-BBMP submits that the petition has to be dismissed as the parties who have filed O.S.No.2878/2013 who are stated to be the complainants are not made as parties in the present petition. Further, it has to be noted that lis is essential between the petitioner and the respondents-BBMP and in the light of the order being passed, remanding matter for fresh consideration, non- impleadment of the complainant cannot be said to be fatal to the petition. It is made clear that while re-considering the matter the respondent-BBMP is also to consider the complaint filed seeking action against the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off subject to the above observations.
Sd/-
JUDGE SSD