IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO.9050/2019(LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
M/s.Precious Pet Services Private Limited, No.505/32, Opp: Sanky Tank Lake, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore-560080, Reptd. by its BDM Sri.Sandeep Atmaram.
(By Sri.Manohar N., Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, Reptd. by its Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru-560001.
2. The Commissioner of BBMP, Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, BBMP Head Offices, N.R.Square, Bengaluru -560 002.
3. The Medical Health Officer, BBMP, 15th Cross Road, Near IPP, Malleshwaram …Petitioner Division, Bengaluru-560003.
…Respondents (By Sri. M.A.Subramani, HCGP for R1, Sri.Amit Deshpande, Advocate for R2 & R3) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned notice dated 24/09/2018(Annexure-C) issued by respondent No.3 as arbitrary and illegal etc.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following;
ORDER Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, running the business establishment under the name and style of ‘M/s. Precious Pet Services Private Limited.’ 2. Petitioner states that respondent-Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (‘BBMP’ for short) has issued notice dated 24/02/2018 calling upon the owner of the premises to obtain trade licence. The petitioner has applied for trade licence through Online vide acknowledgment dated 27/12/2017. Petitioner states that as per Annexure-C, the owner of the premises was called upon to close the business establishment forthwith. Petitioner further states that pursuant to notice at Annexure-C, the premises has been sealed by the respondent-authority without affording sufficient opportunity. Petitioner further states that taxes at commercial rates are being accepted by the respondent- BBMP, hence, it is not open to them at this point of time to refuse to grant trade licence stating that only residential activity is permissible in the said property.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent – BBMP.
4. The respondent-BBMP is to determine as to whether the activity being conducted in the premises belonging to the petitioner is permissible as per the applicable law. In light of the said adjudication being factual in nature, the respondent-BBMP to decide and consider the request for grant of trade licence after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
5. The respondent–BBMP is to consider the application for grant of trade licence at Annexure-A, taking note of the Notification dated 20/03/2015 vide No.UDD 105 MNJ 2008, Bengaluru dated 20th March 2015, Revised Master Plan 2015, applicable Zoning Regulation and other Circulars, directions passed in W.P.No.3676/2008 as may be applicable to determine the permissibility of activity conducted by the petitioner. The respondent BBMP would also look into the sanction plan as has been obtained by the petitioner/landlord. While considering the grant of trade licence, the respondent-BBMP shall record a finding as to the permissibility of accepting tax at commercial rates as regards the petitioner in question, in light of the submission of the counsel for the respondents -BBMP that the plan that has been sanctioned as regards the building is one for residential purpose. Taking note of the fact that premises of the petitioner has been sealed the proceedings for consideration should be completed within a period not later than six weeks from today. In the event, the consideration as above stated is not completed within a period of six weeks, petitioner would be entitled to resume the activity being conducted prior to the premises being sealed.
6. It is made clear that the notice at Annexures-B and C are subject to the consideration to be made by the respondent-BBMP as stated above. In the event the petitioner is found entitled to grant of trade licence and the proposed activity of the petitioner is found to be permissible, the notices would stand set aside. If not, the respondent-BBMP is entitled to take further action in pursuance of the notices.
7. Petitioner is directed to be present before the respondent- BBMP on 09/04/2019 at 11.OO a.m. in order to avail the opportunity of personal hearing.
8. Petitioner and officials of the respondent authorities to be present at the shop premises on 03/04/2019 at 2.00 P.M and petitioner to take necessary steps to remove belongings from the premises.
10. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of, subject to the above observations.
SD/- JUDGE Msu