Remanded

Mrs. K S Latha v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC15 Sept 2021WP/13223/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the petitioner was denied a complete opportunity of hearing before the cancellation of her trade license. It remanded the matter to the BBMP to afford a hearing while ruling that the impugned order stands intact as grave allegations require investigation.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition disposed; petitioner directed to appear before BBMP Officer; respondents to conclude proceedings within four weeks; business allowed to run subject to future orders.

Mrs. K S Latha Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.13223/2021 (LB- BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

MRS. K.S.LATHA D/O LATE K.S.SUNDER RAJ IYENGAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT 8-M-423, 1^ST BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT, KALYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 043.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI ROOPESHA B., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶10

AND

¶11

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, KITTOOR RANI CHENAMMA CIRCLE, OLD HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶12

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (EAST) BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, RESIDENCY ROAD, MAYOHALL, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

HEALTH OFFICER SARVAGNANAGAR MOH, BBMP, WARD NO 27, BENGALURU – 560 005.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶15

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 17.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-H IN WITHDRAWING THE TRADE LICENSE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 17.06.2021 by which the trade license that was standing in the name of the petitioner is cancelled / withdrawn.

¶20

Heard Sri Roopesha B., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri N.K.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶21

The impugned order is a product of certain allegations made by the residents in the vicinity of the place where the petitioner runs a service apartment and has rented it to OYO rooms. The allegation is with regard to the illegal activities that happen in the service apartment, as is complained by the residents in the vicinity of the premises owned by the petitioner.

¶22

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the order of cancellation / withdrawal of trade license is based upon the complaint, was not pursuant to any proceedings initiated or affording an opportunity to the petitioner for being heard in the matter.

¶24

The original records pertaining to the case at hand were summoned and perused. A perusal at the original papers would indicate that a hearing was giving to the petitioner for construction being in violation of the building plan. Those notices were issued under Section 321 (1), (2) and (3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. Insofar as it concerns present trade license, a notice was issued to the petitioner for appearance but no further proceedings were taken as the order withdrawing or cancelling the trade license is made, on receipt of several complaints from the residents in and around the service apartment and the complaints being written to all the Officers of the BBMP alleging that they were grave illegalities going on in the service apartment, which is rented to

¶25

¶26

OYO rooms. Therefore, the fact remains that the petitioner was not afforded a complete opportunity of defending the action prior to impugned cancellation or withdrawal of trade license. Even if it is on the ground of grave illegality, the petitioner is required to be heard and an opportunity to defend is required to be granted. Therefore, the BBMP should now hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶27

Though the matter is remitted to the hands of the BBMP to afford an opportunity of hearing, the order impugned is not interfered with on account of grave allegations that are levelled by the residents in and around the service apartment of the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to come out clean in the proceedings by furnishing all such documents or evidence in justification of the retention of the trade license.

¶28

Therefore, without interfering with the impugned order, I

¶29

deem it appropriate to pass the following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

i. The writ petition is disposed.

¶32

¶33

ii. The petitioner is directed to appear before the competent Officer of the BBMP, before whom the proceedings are pending on 24.09.2021 at 3.00 p.m.

¶34

iii. The respondents - BBMP shall conclude the proceedings within four weeks thereafter.

¶35

iv. The running of the business of the petitioner in the premises shall however remain, subject to the orders that would be passed by the BBMP.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

nvj

¶38

CT:MJ

Mrs. K S Latha v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. K S Latha v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T K Abdul Javeed Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Suresh Kumar K G Vs State by Town Police

Sri. Y. Shashidar Yallapur Vs the State of Karnataka

Korma Janangada Vs Mysore Urban Development Authority

Sri Nagaraja Investments Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Kamdhenu Labels Private Ltd. Vs the Commissioner