IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO.43328/2018 (LB-BMP) Between:
Sri.Deepak Mishrikoti S/o Sri Bhagavant Mishrikoti Age: 34 years, Occ: Business Add: No.2683, First Floor 4th Cross, 18th Main HAL 2nd Stage, Indiranagar, Bengaluru – 8. …Petitioner (By Sri.Venkatesh P.Dalwai, Advocate) And 1. The Commissioner Bengaluru Bruhat Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru – 1.
2. The Medical Superintendent Shanti Nagar Range, Ashok Nagar Bengaluru Bruhat Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru – 25.
….Respondents (By Sri.H.Devendrappa, Advocate) This Writ Petition is filed praying to quash the order dated 20.08.2018 issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-C and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner states that in order to start his business of coffee shop and vending of bakery items, petitioner had applied for grant of trade license to the respondents/BBMP. The copy of the said application is enclosed at Annexure-A. The petitioner states that subsequent to the said application, he has started functioning/operating his business enterprise. The petitioner states that as regards his application for trade license no decision was taken and an endorsement came to be issued at Annexure-C on 20.08.2018 calling upon the petitioner to voluntarily close down his establishment, failing which, action would be taken.
2. The respondents/BBMP in its endorsement had stated that activity of the petitioner was being conducted in a residential area and the same is impermissible as in violation of the Zoning regulations and the revised Master Plan-2015.
3. The petitioner states that there was no notice issued before issuance of notice at Annexure-C. It is submitted that the respondent authority has acted on a presumption that the activity of the petitioner is impermissible and such a conclusion has been arrived at without prior hearing of the petitioner. It is to be noticed that question of permissibility of the activities of the petitioner in the area in question entails the factual adjudication, which ought to have been made prior to the issuance of endorsement at Annexure-C.
4. It would be appropriate that the respondents/ BBMP would hear the petitioner and record the finding as to the permissibility or otherwise the activity of the petitioner. While considering the nature of activity of the respondents/BBMP, the said authority is to record a finding after hearing the petitioner as regard the permissibility of activity in the present area. The said consideration would be made keeping in mind the directions of the Division Bench of this Court dated 19.02.2019 passed in W.P. No.3676/2008, 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 has a bearing with respect to the determination of permissibility of activity of the petitioner in the locality in question. Such consideration to be completed within a period not later than twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Accordingly and subject to the above observation, the petition is disposed of.
Notice at Annexure-C, it is clarified, is to be treated as notice and not an executable order.
Sd/- JUDGE NBM