Partly allowed

Sri Farooq S F v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Sept 2022WP/8773/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a Panchayat resolution prohibiting meat sales near highways as a violation of trading rights. The High Court quashed the resolution lacking legal authority and directed the Panchayat to process the petitioner's trade license application within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned resolution of 29.01.2019 quashed. Petitioner allowed to apply for license; Authority to consider application within four weeks.

Sri Farooq S F Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.8773/2019 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI FAROOQ S F S/O FARID M E, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.143/2, SHUNTIKOPPA VILLAGE, SOMWARPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571 237.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI PRASAD, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI AKHIL S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶12

GRAMA PANCHAYATH SHUNTIKOPPA VILLAGE, SOMWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 253, REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

¶15

(BY SRI SRINIVAS GOWDA R., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI NANDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R-2 DATED 14.2.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FORM NO.3 DATED 14.2.2019 MADE BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Petitioner is running a Chicken meat stall at Huluguli Village which comes under the jurisdiction of the respondent No.2 and for running the same, the petitioner has obtained trade license for the year 2018-19 by paying requisite license fee.

¶20

The respondent No.2 passed the impugned resolution dated 29.01.2019, whereby there was a prohibition for selling chicken meat, fish, sheep meat in shops alongside the highway and it was resolved to grant license to vend the above mentioned items in the shops belonging to the panchayat through auction.

¶21

¶22

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the impugned resolution violates the fundamental right to trade of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also contraventions Section 70(2)(A) and 70(2)(C) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the impugned resolution was passed in terms of the direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner concerned and the Pollution Control Board stating that the license should not be granted to the owners of the shops alongside the highway and the same may be shifted to the market yard in order to maintain hygiene and also to prevent causing nuisance to the public at large.

¶24

I have examined the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶25

Petitioner was granted with trade license by the

¶26

respondent No.2 for carrying on the business of selling of fish,

¶27

¶28

chicken meat etc., in the shop alongside the highway. However, by the impugned resolution, the respondent No.2 resolved to grant license for selling meat through public auction thus depriving the petitioner of his rights to carry on the business of selling meat in his shop alongside highway. In the absence of any source of power, the impugned resolution passed by the respondent No.2 prohibiting sale of meat alongside highway is one without authority of law and also violates fundamental right to trade, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also contrary to Section 69 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.

¶29

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

i) The writ petition is allowed ii) Impugned resolution dated 29.01.2019 passed by the respondent No.2 at Annexure-A is hereby quashed.

¶32

iii) Petitioner is at liberty to submit an application in the prescribed form with the respondent No.2 for grant of trade

¶33

¶34

license for carrying on his business in his shop in terms of section 69 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.

¶35

iv) If such an application is submitted by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 shall consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of application to be submitted by the petitioner.

¶36

v) It is made clear that the petitioner is liable to pay license fee as prescribed under the provisions of Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 or Rules made there under.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Sri Farooq S F v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Farooq S F v. State of Karnataka

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

Sri Santosh Kumar Vs the Zonal Joint Commissioner (South)

The Primary Agricultural Credit Co. Operative Society Ltd., Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Syed Hameedulla Hassan Vs Sri Bheemaiah

Sri N Rajendra Vs the Chief Secretary

R Mayanna Vs the State of Karnataka

T M Rajeshwari Pandit Vs State of Karnataka