IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.58249/2018 (GM – KEB) BETWEEN:
SMT.R.KALPANA W/O V.VASANTH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.81, 4TH CROSS VITTALA NAGARA BANGALORE - 560 026. ... PETITIONER [BY SMT.Y.P.VIJAYA VASANTHA KUMARI, ADV.] AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, MULTI STORIED BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001.
2 . BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY (BESCOM) REP BY ITS CHIEF ENGINEER, KAMATH HOTEL BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD OPP. TO RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
3 . BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE BANGALORE ELECTRICITY COMPANY (COMMERCIAL, WORK & MAINTAINANCE) 6TH SUB-DIVISION WEST, BYATARAYANAPURA, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 026.
4 . THE MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE CHAMARAJAPETE DIVISION CHAMARAJAPETE, BANGALORE-560002.
5 . POLUTION CONTROL BOARD REP BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, NO.49, PARISARA BHAVANA CHURCH STREET, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
6 . OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER KARANTAKA STATE POLLUTION BOARD, BANGALORE CITY - SOUTH 1ST FLOOR, NISARGA BHAVAN 7TH D MAIN, THIMMAIAH ROAD, SHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 079. …RESPONDENTS [BY SMT.NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-1; SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R-2 & R-3;
SMT.NETHRA G. FOR SRI A.MAHESH CHOUDHARY, ADV. FOR R-5 & R-6; R-4 SERVED.] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 18.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-3 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 18.12.2018 issued by respondent No.3.
2. It is submitted that the petitioner is engaged in the business of weaving by installing the power looms under the name and style of “Varsha Textiles”. It is submitted that respondent No.3 has issued the notice impugned primarily on the ground that the licence bearing No.R-17181603575761 issued by respondent No.4 to the petitioner has been cancelled, whereas licence number of the petitioner is WE19141746165580392 issued by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) - respondent No.4. As such, the basis for issuance of the notice is wrong. It is further submitted that in terms of the circular instructions issued by the Commissioner, BBMP dated 25.09.2017, exemption has been granted for the Trade Licence relating to the Small Scale Industries coming within the jurisdiction of the BBMP. Respondent No.6 has issued the notice to the husband of the petitioner who is no way concerned with the business of the petitioner which has been duly replied.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the aforesaid grounds submitted that the action of respondent No.3 in issuing the impugned notice at Annexure – A is arbitrary and unjustifiable.
4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 justifying the notice impugned submitted that R.R. Number of installation of the petitioner is not in dispute. Based on the R.R. number, notice has been issued. Reliance is placed on Annexure – R1 to the Statement of Objections filed.
5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 would submit that on the complaint submitted by Sri. Nagaraj J. and Sri. Kishore Gowda B.V., show-cause notice was issued to the husband of the petitioner for violating the timings fixed by the BBMP for functioning of the power looms.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perusing the material on record, it is ex-facie evident that the basis for respondent No.3 to issue the show-cause notice at Annexure – A is the cancellation of the licence bearing No. R- 17181603575761 by respondent No.4 issued to the petitioner. No such licence number has been issued to the petitioner. On the other hand, trade licence number of the petitioner is WE19141746165580392. If the basis for issuing the notice is found to be defective, the edifice/order cannot stand the test of reasonableness. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the circular instructions of the Commissioner would support her case in view of the exemption granted to the Small Scale Industries for obtaining the Trade Licence. If that being the position, respondent No.3 calling upon the petitioner to putforth explanation failing which to discontinue the supply of power is only arbitrary and unjustifiable, cannot be sustained.
7. Hence, the writ petition stands allowed. The notice impugned dated 18.12.2018 at Annexure – A is quashed.
It is needless to mention that the respondent – authorities are at liberty to initiate action in accordance with law, if prescribed timings are not maintained by the petitioner for running the textile power looms.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR