Smt T T Bhagya vs The Commissioner on 22 April, 2013

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt T T Bhagya vs The Commissioner on 22 April, 2013

Bench: A.S. Bopanna

                        1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

      DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2013

                     BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

      WRIT PETITION NO.23296/2011 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN

SMT.T.T.BHAGYA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
W/O.H.R.KRISHNE GOWDA,
R/O.96/A, 9TH CROSS,
M.E.C LAYOUT,
IYENGAR LAYOUT,
PEENYA 3RD PHASE,
BANGALORE-560 058.                  ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. MOHD USMAN SHAIKH, ADV)

AND

1.    THE COMMISSIONER,
      OFFICE OF THE
      COMMISSIONER,
      BRUHAT BANGALORE
      MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
      N.R.SQUARE,
      BANGALORE-560 001.

2.    DEPUTY HEALTH OFFICER,
      DASARHALLI ZONE,
      OFFICE OF THE BRUHAT BANGALORE
      MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
                                  2



      DASARAHALLI,
      BANGALORE-560 073.                   ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.I.G.GACHCHINAMATH, ADV. FOR R1 & R2)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER & NOTICE PRODUCED
AT ANN-A & A1, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS,
INFORMING HIM THAT HIS LICENSE IS CANCELLED
PRODUCED AT ANNA- DT.31.1.11 & CALLING UPON
THE PETITIONER TO SHIFT HER WORKING PLACE TO
SOME OTHER PLACE, PRODUCED AT ANN-A1,
DT.22.6.11 BY ISSUING WRIT OF CERTIORARI.

    THIS  WRIT   PETITION COMING   ON   FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 31.01.2011 and the subsequent notice dated 22.06.2011 which are impugned at Annexures- A and A1 to this petition.

2. The petitioner claims to be a women entrepreneur who has started her embroidery business in the name and style of B.K. Enterprises in the shed 3 bearing No.7, House No.45, First Floor, Industrial Sub Town, Second Phase, Yeshwanthpur. Thereafter, it was shifted to No.96/A, Iyengar Layout, Next to MEC Layout, Ward No.41, Industrial Area, Bangalore-560 058. In respect of the said business being carried on by the petitioner, a trade license had also been issued. By the order dated 31.01.2011, the petitioner has been directed to stop the business in the said premises. By the subsequent notice dated 22.06.2011, the petitioner has been directed to shift the business from the said premises. In that circumstance, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The respondents have filed their objection statement. It is their contention that the petitioner is carrying on business in a residential area which is causing noise pollution and in view of the complaint made by the residents of the said area, the action which has now has been complained of has been taken. It is to 4 be seen that the respondents have contended that the petitioner without challenging the order of cancellation dated 31.01.2011 have approached this Court and therefore the respondents contend that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. In the light of the contention putforth by the respondents, what is necessary to be noticed is that the order which is impugned at Annexures-A is the very order dated 31.01.2011 which the respondents claim as having not been challenged. Since, the said order is in challenge before this Court, the contentions of the petitioner in any event requires to be noticed. Though, the respondents contend that the petitioner is carrying on business in a residential area causing noise pollution and in view of the compliant lodged by the respondents, the order dated 31.01.2011 has been passed, the very order would disclose that it has been passed without opportunity to the petitioner. The reference therein does 5 not indicate that notice had been issued to the petitioner before cancelling the permission and as such the subsequent notice issued pursuant to such order without opportunity also would not be sustainable.

5. This Court at the first instance while directing notice had granted interim stay of the impugned Annexures-A and A1. Therefore, if the petitioner still continue to be in possession of the said premises and is carrying on the business in view of the interim order granted by this Court, the respondents shall now treat the order dated 31.01.2011 as a show cause notice and provide opportunity to the petitioner. On receiving the response of the petitioner, appropriate proceedings shall be held and thereafter a considered order shall be passed in that regard. It is made clear that if the petitioner has already shifted from the said premises, the benefit of this order would not be available to the petitioner. 6

6. Hence, a direction is issued to the respondent No.2 to treat the order dated 31.01.2011 as a show cause notice and issue one more notice to the petitioner, provide opportunity to putforth her contention and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. If the petitioner has already stopped and shifted the business, no further action is required. If consideration is required, the petitioner shall furnish a copy of this order to the respondent No.2 along with her reply to the allegation within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

7. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE ST*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court