Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Jai Hanuman Creations vs State Of Karnataka on 21 September, 2024

                                        -1-
                                                   NC: 2024:KHC:39072
                                                WP No. 26033 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. 26033 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

              BETWEEN:

              JAI HANUMAN CREATIONS
              REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETORSHIP
              GANTIGATTE KALLAPPA GIRISH
              R/ NO 116, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS
              KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT, RAJGOPALNAGARA,
              BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560058
                                                        ...PETITIONER
              (BY SRI. HARSHAVARDHANA, ADVOCATE FOR
                  SRI. SURENDRA Y S., ADVOCATE)

              AND:

              1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally           REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
signed by R         DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
DEEPA               R/O VIKASA SOUDHA,
Location:           DR BR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
HIGH                BANGALORE-560001
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
              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,
                    DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE-57
                               -2-
                                           NC: 2024:KHC:39072
                                        WP No. 26033 of 2024




4.    THE HEALTH OFFICER
      BBMP DASARAHALLI ZONE,
      R/O MEI LAYOUT, BAGALAKUNTE,
      HESARGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
      BANGALORE- 560073
                                              ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, AGA 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 22.07.2024 issued by respondent No.4 vide Annexure-D in F.R.No.26181/2024.

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 Jai Hanuman Creations and is -3- NC: 2024:KHC:39072 WP No. 26033 of 2024 engaged in the business of retail of clothing footwear and leather articles in specialized stores. 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 11.07.2024 vide Annexure-C and one more notice dated 22.07.2024 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. 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 -4- NC: 2024:KHC:39072 WP No. 26033 of 2024 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.

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 -5- NC: 2024:KHC:39072 WP No. 26033 of 2024 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 consider the reply and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law.

-6-

NC: 2024:KHC:39072 WP No. 26033 of 2024

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