IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.15059/2019 (LB-BMP) Between:
Mr. Satish Bhandary, S/o Shankar Bhandary, Aged about 57 years, R/at No.74, Lakshmaiah Block, Ganganagar, Bellary Main Road, Bangalore-560032. ... Petitioner (By Sri D.C. Jagadeesh, Advocate) And:
1. The Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike (BBMP), N.R.Road, Bangalore-560002.
2. Medical Officer at Health, Hebbal Range, BBMP, Bangalore-560024. ... Respondents (By Sri Amit Deshpande, Advocate for Respondents) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned notice dated 20.02.2018 issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure- D as the same is illegal and without jurisdiction and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner is stated to be carrying his hotel business in the name and style of “Hotel Samrat Bar and Restaurant”. He states that initially the trade license had been granted and was renewed from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018 for the last time.
2. The petitioner states that he has sought for renewal. Thereafter a notice came to be issued by respondent No.2 calling upon the petitioner to close his business establishment within a period of seven days failing which action would be initiated by the petitioner under Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. The notice further stated that the activity of petitioner was impermissible. The petitioner states that the notice at Annexure-D dated 20.02.2018 is in effect an order of closure without any prior notice or opportunity of personal hearing afforded to him.
3. Learned counsel for respondent-BBMP on the other hand contends that the notice has been issued after verifying and coming to the conclusion that the activity of the petitioner was impermissible as per the applicable Zoning Regulations. However, in light of the fact that the notice does not contain sufficient details or any finding with reference to the particular facts of the case, that the activity of petitioner was impermissible and noticing that such adjudication as regards permissibility of activity of the petitioner in the particular locality would involve determination of factual matters, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent-BBMP to arrive at a decision after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The respondent-BBMP to consider the permissibility of activity of the petitioner in the locality in question after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Such consideration would require the respondent-BBMP to take note of the order passed by the Division Bench in W.P.No.3676/2008 dated 19.02.2008, the Zoning Regulations, the Revised Master Plan-2015 and also Notification No.UDD 105 MNJ 2008, Bengaluru dated 20.03.2015 and such other Circulars as may have a bearing as regards the determination to be made.
4. In view of the fact that the petitioner is stated to be currently carrying on his business. The notice at Annexure-D would be kept in abeyance till the respondent-BBMP would consider and pass an appropriate order regarding permissibility of petitioner’s activity. It is made clear that the consideration by the respondent-BBMP in light of observation made above would be completed within a period of six weeks from today.
5. However, final determination by the respondent-BBMP is that the business activity of the petitioner is impermissible an order is passed in light of observation made above the notice at Annexure-D would revive. However, if findings of respondent-BBMP is otherwise and to the effect that the activities of the petitioner is permissible, the notice issued by the respondent-BBMP stands set - aside.
6. The petitioner to be present before respondent No.1-Commissioner, BBMP to avail opportunity of personal hearing as referred above on 25.04.2019 at 3.00 p.m.
Subject to the above observation, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ssb