IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.5360/2019 (LB – BMP) Between:
M/s. Vesper Pharmaceuticals, Singapura Village, Vidyaranyapura Post, Bengaluru – 560 097, Reptd. by its Proprietor, Dr. M. Suresh Sharma. ... Petitioner (By Sri P.N. Nanja Reddy, Advocate) And:
1. Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Reptd. by its Commissioner, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru – 560 002.
2. Medical Officer of Health, Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Yellahanka Division, Bengaluru – 560 092. … Respondents (By Smt. M.C. Nagashree, Advocate) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order/notice dated 12.01.2019 (Annexure-F) issued by the respondent No.2 as the same is illegal, arbitrary and without the authority of law and in violation of properties of natural justice.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner is stated to be a Firm involved in the manufacture of animal feeds, supplements and medicines for the use of animals.
2. It is stated that the petitioner’s company has been registered with the Commercial Tax Department and has obtained GST Registration and other permissions including from the Directorate of Industries and Commerce.
3. It is also stated that the petitioner had obtained Trade Licence from the respondents for the year 2016-17.
4. It is stated that the respondent-BBMP has issued a notice at Annexure-F dated 12.01.2019 stating that the commercial activity that is being carried out is being conducted in a residential zone and the road width being 40 feet, the said activity is impermissible in light of the Zoning Regulations. The notice also states that the said activity carried on by the petitioner is impermissible in light of the directions in W.P. No.3676/2008.
5. The petitioner was called upon to close his establishment within a period of three days failing which, appropriate action would be initiated under the provisions of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976.
6. It is to be noticed that the question of permissibility of the activity of the petitioner would entail factual adjudication and the notice impugned does not record the categorical finding as to the nature of activity and its permissibility. It would be appropriate to direct the respondent-BBMP to hear the petitioner and record a finding as to the permissibility or otherwise of the activities of the petitioner. While considering the nature of activity of the petitioner and its permissibility, the respondent-BBMP is to take note of the directions of the Division Bench passed in W.P.No.3676/2008 on 19.02.208, 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 with respect to the permissibility of the activity being carried on by the petitioner.
7. Such consideration is to be completed within a period not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
8. As regards the prayer relating to consideration of the petitioner’s application for renewal of Trade Licence, the same would be considered consequent to the determination to be made as regards permissibility of activity of the petitioner. In light of the observations made above, it is made clear that the notice at Annexure-F dated 12.01.2019 is only a notice and is not an executable order.
Subject to above observations, this petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SJK