Karnataka High Court
Sri Srikanth R Bapat vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike on 13 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40350
WP No. 29982 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 29982 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SRIKANTH R BAPAT
S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA BAPAT,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
WORKING AS CHEF-COOK,
RESIDING AT NO.7,
2ND 'A' CROSS,
ISEC MAIN ROAD,
NAGARBHAVI,
BENGALURU - 560 072.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VINAYAKA B. VISHNU BATTA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
Digitally
signed by REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER,
SUMA N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002
Location:
HIGH 2. THE MEDICAL HEALTH OFFICER
COURT OF
KARNATAKA GOVIDARAJANAGARA DIVISION,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.AA.VAI.(GO.NA)/P.R/4/2025-26
DATED 30.08.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT - THE MEDICAL
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40350
WP No. 29982 of 2025
HC-KAR
HEALTH OFFICER, GOVINDARAJANAGARA DIVISION, BBMP (VIDE
ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has challenged notices bearing No.D.ªÉÊ.(UÉÆÃ.£À)/¦.Dgï/4/2025-26 dated 30.08.2025 and D.ªÉÊ.(UÉÆÃ.£À)/¦.Dgï/4/2025-26 dated 08.09.2025 issued by respondent No.2.
2. The petitioner claims that he is a South Indian Chef having culinary expertise in traditional vegetarian dishes. He is a lessee of a property bearing No.7, 2nd 'A' Cross, ISEC Main Road, Nagarbhavi, where he is residing. He claims that as a Chef, his services would be availed for small family functions and that in order to re-invent his culinary delights, he creates recipes. The petitioner contends that a neighbour had raised a grievance on 18.08.2025 alleging that he was carrying on catering business in the house. Following this, respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 30.08.2025 directing the petitioner to -3- NC: 2025:KHC:40350 WP No. 29982 of 2025 HC-KAR shift catering business to a commercial zone. The petitioner submitted a reply on 04.09.2025 contending that he was not carrying on catering business or any trade and that he occasionally prepares chutney powder, chilly powder, sambar powder, pickle etc., He also submitted a representation to the respondent No.2 that he is not operating any catering business. Nonetheless, the petitioner contends that respondent No.2 under the guise of implementing Zonal Regulations of Revised Master Plan - 2015, is insisting that the petitioner should shift to a commercial premises. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the notice issued by the respondent No.2.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not carrying on catering business as alleged by the neighbour but being a Chef, he prepares the requisites needed for his profession.
4. The learned counsel for respondents on the other hand contended that if the petitioner is using any of the preparations for his domestic consumption, the respondents would not take any action. However, the petitioner has been -4- NC: 2025:KHC:40350 WP No. 29982 of 2025 HC-KAR doing it on a large scale and therefore, neighbours had complained and respondent No.2 was forced to initiate action. At any rate, he contends that the impugned orders/notices were issued by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner should file a reply and respondent No.2 after considering the same would pass appropriate orders.
5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.
6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, respondent No.2 has issued two notices dated 30.08.2025 and 08.09.2025 directing the petitioner to shift to a commercial place as the activity undertaken by him was creating nuisance to the neighbours. The petitioner has submitted a reply on 04.09.2025. The petitioner instead of awaiting consideration of the reply, has hastily approached this Court to challenge the notice issued by the respondent No.2.
7. In view of the above, this petition is disposed off directing the respondent No.2 to consider the reply submitted -5- NC: 2025:KHC:40350 WP No. 29982 of 2025 HC-KAR by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. Until such orders are passed, the respondent No.2 is directed not to disturb the petitioner from conducting activities in his house.
8. Sri. Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for respondents is permitted to file memo of appearance within ten days.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39