Karnataka High Court
R Krishna vs Deputy Health Officer on 8 January, 2020
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION No.51721/2019 (LB-BMP)
Between:
R. Krishna,
S/o Late Ramaiah,
Aged about 39 years,
Residing at No.91, 4th Cross,
Chandrashekara Layout,
Srigandadakaavalu,
Sunkadakatte,
Bengaluru - 560 091. ... Petitioner
(By Sri H. Kantharaja and Sri Ravi H.K., Advocates)
And:
Deputy Health Officer,
Office of the Deputy Health Officer,
Rajarajeshwari Nagara Zone,
Rajarajeshwarinagara,
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike,
Bengaluru - 560 098. ... Respondent
(By Sri Amith Deshpande, Advocate)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the final notice
dated 02.11.2019 vide Annexure-G issued by the
respondents as illegal and etc.
2
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner stated to be the owner of site bearing No.14, Srigandhakavalu (Chandrashekhar Layout), Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru is engaged in the business of manufacture of food products in the name and style of M/s. S.K.B. Products in the suit schedule premises.
2. The petitioner submits that he possesses the trade licence from Health Department, which has been renewed periodically. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been conducting his business in compliance of all other applicable laws.
3. The petitioner has called in question the notice at Annexure-G dated 02.11.2019 issued by respondent-Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), wherein it has been observed that the petitioner's business enterprise is being conducted in a 3 building, which is situated in the residential area and also was causing noise pollution.
4. It is further submitted that the trade licence has not been renewed for the year 2019-2020. It is noted that in the said endorsement that there have been complaints by the neighbouring residents. Noting the same, an endorsement has been issued directing the petitioner to stop business activities within a period of 24 hours in public interest.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice is in the nature of an order which has the effect of determining the rights of the petitioner and has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing.
6. It is to be noted that the grounds that are made out in the endorsement requires an order to be passed after hearing the petitioner and the order that is 4 to be passed should necessarily refer to the specific applicable zoning regulations as well as the Revised Master Plan-2015 insofar as there is an observation with respect to running of business enterprise in the residential area.
7. Insofar as the allegation relating to noise pollution, the notice or order that is to be passed ought to contain the details of relevant report regarding the activity of the petitioner being in contravention of the applicable noise pollution norms.
8. In light of the above, the notice at Annexure-G dated 02.11.2019 is to be construed as a show cause notice and the petitioner is at liberty to reply to the same and upon such reply, the respondent- BBMP to afford an opportunity of oral hearing and pass a considered order.
5
9. The respondent-BBMP undertakes to complete the proceedings within a period not later than six weeks from the date of appearance of the petitioner before it. Till such time, no coercive action to be taken by the respondent-BBMP as regards the enterprise of the petitioner.
10. In view of the above, the petitioner to appear before the respondent-BBMP at 3.00 p.m. on 27.01.2020.
11. The request for grant of trade licence will be decided consequent to the proceedings referred to above. All contentions of both parties are kept open.
Subject to the above observations, this petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE VGR