Karnataka High Court
Sri Balakrishna Shastri vs The Commissioner on 31 May, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.15390 OF 2015 (LB - BMP)
BETWEEN:
SRI. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRI,
S/O VENKANNA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT C/O VIJAYALAKSHMI TAILORS,
NO.236/A, 11TH B MAIN,
RAJAJINAGAR, 2ND BLOCK,
BANGALORE - 10.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.MADHUSUDHAN M.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER,
BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE MEDICAL OFFICER FOR HEALTH,
RAJAJINAGAR RANGE, B.B.M.P.,
BANGLAORE CITY CORPORATION,
BANGALORE - 76.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ARAVIND M.NEGLUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 27.3.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-2
VIDE ANNEXURE - E; DIRECT THE R-2 NOT TO INSIST THE
PETITIONER TO CLOSE DOWN THE BUSINESS AND HOLD THAT
NO LICENSE IS REQUIRED TO RUN THE ASTROLOGY OFFICE.
2
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner claims to be an Astrologer and is providing services in a part of the premises bearing No.236/A, 11th 'B' Main Road, Rajajinagar, 2nd Block, Bangalore-560 010. He claims that he has been providing services in the said premises since last 15 years without causing any nuisance to the neighbourers or residents in the locality.
2. Nonetheless, the respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 21.12.2013 directing the petitioner to vacate and close the astrology services on the ground that the premises where the petitioner was providing services lay within a residential zone where commercial activity was prohibited. Later, on 21.12.2014, the Joint Commissioner of BBMP addressed a communication to the petitioner and others on the basis of a complaint lodged by Sri.Bangalore Raju Venkatesha Prasanna against unauthorised industries 3 operating in that area. The petitioner objected to this notice and claimed that he was not operating any industry. He also objected that the complainant - Sri.Bangalore Raju Venkatesha Prasanna was in the habit of lodging complaint against the neighbourers. Later, on 08.04.2015, the petitioner received an order of closure from the respondent No.2 wherein, it was stated that the petitioner was carrying business and the extant Zonal Regulation prescribed that no commercial activity is allowed in residential zone. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The petitioner contends that he is not indulging in any trade or manufacturing activity, but he is using a part of his residential premises for the purposes of providing astrology services. Therefore, there is no requirement of obtaining any trade licence to run the astrology services in the premises in question.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents contested the case and submitted that the petitioner is 4 involved in commercial activity in a part of the premises which lie within the residential zone and therefore, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why his activity should not be closed and thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and the impugned order was passed. He submitted that admittedly the petitioner does not possesses a trade licence for conducting any commercial activity and therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has undertaken any manufacture or commercial activity in the premises in question. It is rather difficult to accept the contention of the respondents that providing astrology service can in any way be termed as a "trade". The learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that persons similarly situated such as Advocates, Medical Professionals, Chartered Accountants etc., are entitled to carry on their professional activity within a part 5 of their premises without being termed as using the premises for commercial activity. As a matter of fact, the Zoning Regulations provide for permitted activities in the residential areas which inter alia includes various activities such as "Offices / Clinics belonging to professional services category and self-owned", which is however subject to the condition that such use is restricted to 20% of the total built up area and in plots having width of 12 meters or above. If the petitioner is using the premises since long before the Zoning Regulations of 2015 were introduced, the respondents cannot unsettle the same.
6. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 directing the closure of the premises of the petitioner is liable to be quashed. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and impugned order dated 27.03.2015 passed by the respondent No.2 is quashed.
7. The respondent No.2 shall not disturb the petitioner using the portion of his residential premises to provide astrological services to his clients. However, the 6 petitioner shall make sure that there shall be no nuisance caused in front of residential premises by the clients of the petitioner in the form of parking vehicles etc. Sd/-
JUDGE VMB