IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.54903 OF 2017 (GM-RES) Between:
Shamanna P, S/o. Late Papanna, Aged about 60 years, Residing at No.23/1, G. K. M. Road, Jaraganahalli, J. P. Nagar Post, Kanakapura Main Road, Bengaluru-560 078.
… Petitioner (By Sri. Harish Kumar, Advocate (Absent)) And:
1. The Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru-560 027.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub-Division, BESCOM, Bommanahalli, Bengaluru.
3. The Deputy Health Officer, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bommanahalli Range, Bengaluru.
4. The Health Officer, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bommanahalli Range, Bengaluru.
5. Narayanamma, D/o. Papanna, Aged about 50 years, Residing at No.20/2, J. P. Nagar Post, Kanakanagara, Bengaluru-560 078.
… Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the R-1 to 4 not to grant any license in favour of the R-5 to set up the proposed flour mill, at Sy.No.20/2, of Kanakanagara, Kanakapura Main Road, Bengaluru, as sought by the R-5.
This petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER None for the parties. Record perused.
In this petition, petitioner inter alia has prayed for the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ of mandamus or orders of like nature directing the respondent No.1 to 4 not to grant any license in favour of the 5th respondent to set up the proposed flour mill, at Sy.No.20/2, of Kanakanagara, Kanakapura Main Road, Bengaluru, as sought by the 5th respondent.
b) Grant such other relief or reliefs that this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances involved in the case to meet the ends of justice.”
2. From perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, it is evident that respondent No.5 has made a request to respondent No.4 to grant the licence to run the flour mill.
3. However, the prayer made by respondent No.5 is rejected on the ground that no such permission could be granted as he does not fulfill the criteria.
4. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has prayed the reliefs as stated supra.
5. The prayer for setting up of the flour mill has also been rejected by respondent No.4. Therefore, there appears no need for issuing a direction as prayed for by the petitioner.
6. However, needless to state that in case such prayer is made by the petitioner, the same shall be dealt in accordance with law by the Competent Authority.
With the aforesaid observations, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-