Karnataka High Court
Sam Enterprises vs State Of Karnataka on 21 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:39070
WP No. 26029 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 26029 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
SAM ENTERPRISES
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SADAKATH ULLA KHAN
R/AT NO 90, KEMEPGOWDA LAYOUT
RAJGOPALNAGAR, BANGAORE
KARNATAKA 560058
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HARSHAVARDHANA M.R., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SURENDRA Y S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed
by R DEEPA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF R/O VIKASA SOUDHA,
KARNATAKA DR BR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001
2. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKA
R/O HUDSON CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560001
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER
BBMP DASARAHALLI ZONE,
R/O JAIN TEMPLE ROAD,
PRASHANTH NAGAR,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:39070
WP No. 26029 of 2024
DASARAHALLI,
BANGALORE-57
4. THE HEALTH OFFICER
BBMP DASARAHALLI ZONE,
R/O MEI LAYOUT, BAGALAKUNTE,
HESARGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE- 560073
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SPOORTHI V. HCGP FOR R1
SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO.
BBMP/DISPUTE/AY/PR/67/24-25 DTD 6.07.2024 ISSUED BY
THE R-4 VIDE ANNX-D AND ISSUE DIRECTION TO RELEASE
THE LOCKED OUT PORTION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the impugned notice dated 06.07.2024 issued by respondent No.4 vide Annexure-D in F.R.No.26182/2024. -3-
NC: 2024:KHC:39070 WP No. 26029 of 2024
2. The brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as under:
The petitioner is s registered company which is under the name and style of Sam Enterprises and is engaged in the business of collecting of metallic scraps from factories and industries and trading. Respondent No.4 without having powers conferred under the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 initiated an enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner has issued notice dated 25.06.2024 vide Annexure-C and one more notice dated 06.07.2024 vide Annexure-D. The petitioner without submitting a reply to the notices vide Annexures C and D, has filed this writ petition. It is contended that by virtue of impugned Annexures C and D, respondent No.4 has locked the premises. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the respondents. -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:39070 WP No. 26029 of 2024
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4 issued a notices vide Annexures C and D directing the petitioner to closedown the business. He submits that no opportunity was provided to the petitioner to submit a reply. He also submits that without passing the final order, respondent No.4 has locked the premises. The action of respondent No.4 to lock the premises is arbitrary and illegal. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent BBMP submits that the notices vide Annexures C and D may be treated as show cause notices and liberty be reserved to the petitioner to submit a reply within a reasonable time, respondent No.4 considering the reply will pass an order. Hence, prayed to dispose of the writ petition.
6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:39070 WP No. 26029 of 2024
7. Admittedly, the petitioner is carrying on a business in the property in question after obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority. Respondent No.4 on the complaint of the localities issued a notice vide Annexure-C, whereas the petitioner did not replied to Annexure-C and thereafter, respondent No.4 issued second notice vide Annexure-D. The petitioner without submitting a reply to the notices filed this writ petition. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is premature. Respondent No.4 without passing the final order has no authority to lock the premises. The action of respondent No.4 in locking the premises is illegal and unauthorized. Further, no opportunity is provided to the petitioner to reply to the notices vide Annexures C and D.
8. In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of treating Annexures C and D as show cause notices and liberty is reserved to the petitioner to submit a reply to the show causes notices, within a period of 15 days from today and thereafter, respondent No.4 shall -6- NC: 2024:KHC:39070 WP No. 26029 of 2024 consider the reply and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law.
9. Respondent No.4 is directed to open the lock of the premises on or before 23.09.2024.
10. All the contentions of the parties are kept open.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB