Karnataka High Court
M/S Vivek Shankar Architects vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9267
WP No. 29033 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 29033 OF 2019 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S VIVEK SHANKAR ARCHITECTS,
NO.2230/1, 16TH B CROSS, D BLOCK,
8TH MAIN, SAHAKARNAGAR,
BENGALURU-560092,
BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
MR VIVEK V SHANKAR,
SON OF VIJAYSHANKAR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VASUKI K N, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI B C PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
SENIOR LABOUR INSPECTOR,
Digitally OFFICE OF THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
signed by GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
PRAMILA G V KARMIKABHAVANA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
Location: BENGALURU-560029.
HIGH COURT
...RESPONDENT
OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI M RAJAKUMAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS LEADING TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE IMPUGNED
SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ISSUD BY THE RESPONDENT
DTD18.6.2019 [ANNEXURE-C]QUASH THE IMPUGNED SHOW-
CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT DTD18.6.2019
[ANNEXURE-C].
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9267
WP No. 29033 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.
2. This petition is filed assailing the Show Cause Notice dated 18.06.2019 marked at Annexure-C. In terms of the said Show Cause Notice, Senior Labour Inspector has issued notice under the provisions of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 and Rules, 1963; Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and Rules, 1963; Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Rules, 1958; Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Rules, 1973 and Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and Rules, 1976.
3. It is stated in the said notice that when the inspection was made on 22.04.2019 at 01.30 p.m., the violations under the aforementioned Acts are noticed and the direction was issued to produce the records to establish the compliance of the provisions of the aforementioned Acts. Since -3- NC: 2026:KHC:9267 WP No. 29033 of 2019 HC-KAR compliance is not made as directed, a Show Cause Notice is issued as to why a prosecution should not be launched against the petitioner.
4. Learned Government Advocate has raised a preliminary objection to contend that the petition is premature and is to be dismissed and the petitioner has to respond to the Show Cause Notice marked at Annexure-C. Along with the statement of objection, the learned Government Advocate has also produced the inspection report dated 22.04.2019 wherein it is stated that the registers required to be maintained under the aforementioned Acts have not been maintained by the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that though the petition is filed challenging the Show Cause Notice, the respondent has no authority to issue the Show Case Notice, as such, the jurisdictional issue is raised and the Writ Petition can be entertained.
6. Learned counsel would also submit that the issue raised by the petition is covered in terms of the judgment of -4- NC: 2026:KHC:9267 WP No. 29033 of 2019 HC-KAR the Madras High Court in L.M.Chithale and Others vs. The Commissioner of Labour1.
7. It is also his submission that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947 are in pari materia with the provisions of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1961 (for short 'Act, 1961') and the premises of the petitioner which is used as Architect's consultancy cannot be subjected to the provisions of Act, 1961 and cannot be termed as Act under the Act, 1961.
8. Learned Government Advocate would oppose the petition on the premise that on the date of inspection, the necessary records were not maintained in the premises as such the petition is not maintainable.
9. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.
10. Since the petitioner has raised the jurisdictional question before this Court, the Court is required to consider whether the respondent had the jurisdiction to inspect the 1 AIR 1964 Mad 131 -5- NC: 2026:KHC:9267 WP No. 29033 of 2019 HC-KAR premises and to issue notices as issued under Annexure-C and whether the respondent had the jurisdiction to make inspection report as noted under Annexure- R1.
11. It is stated by the petitioner that he is an Architect by profession and is not carrying on any construction activities and his role is only confined to consultancy and preparing the designs.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has not placed any materials to show that the petitioner was running the office to carry out civil engineering works.
13. Under these circumstances, the law laid down by the Madras High Court in L.M.Chithale and Others (supra) comes to the aid of the petitioner to hold that the consultancy activity of the petitioner/Architect does not fall under the provisions of the Act, 1961.
14. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the impugned notice has to be set aside.
15. Hence, the following:
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:9267 WP No. 29033 of 2019 HC-KAR ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned notice dated 18.06.2019 is set-
aside.
(iii) The finding recorded by this Court is only in relation to the alleged spot inspection which has taken place in the year 2019 and not in respect of any other activities which might have taken place after 2019.
(iv) It is made clear that, in case the petitioner is carrying on any activity which is related to civil engineering and construction, after 2019 then the respondent authorities are at liberty to take such action as advised in law.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46