Allowed

M/S. Nandana Foods Pvt. Ltd., v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2023WP/40490/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition filed by a hospitality business operator to quash notices issued by the Fire Department and Electricity Supply Company threatening power disconnection. The Court found the notices unsustainable as they were issued without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and failed to consider prior submissions regarding safety compliance.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notices dated 05.01.2018, 31.05.2018, and 05.03.2018 are quashed. The respondents are directed to reconsider the matter after hearing the petitioner within eight weeks.

M/S. Nandana Foods Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 40490 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.40490 OF 2018 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S. NANDANA FOODS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS BUSINESS PLACE AT: NO.21, ITI LAYOUT, CHIKKAMARANAHALLI, NEW BEL ROAD, CORPORATION WARD NO.4, BENGALURU – 560 094 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. R. RAVICHANDRAN. ... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI S. KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by SHYAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001 BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶14

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (FIRE DEPARTMENT), KARNATAKA FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES, BANGALORE – 560 042.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC.,) C6 SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE ELECTRICITY

¶16

SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,

¶17

¶18

WP No. 40490 of 2018

¶19

MATHIKERE, BANGALORE – 560 054.

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. ANITHA N., HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI V.N. MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 05.01.2018 BEARING NO.GBC(1)98/DD(FP)/HRPR)2017 (PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 PURSUANT TO THE NOTIFICATION DATED 07.07.2011 AND INTIMATION DATED 31.05.2018 BEARING NO.AEE/C.0&M/C6/AET/AAO271, ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT (PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J) INFORMING THAT THE POWER SUPPLY WILL BE DISCONNECTED TO THE PROPERTY BEARING NO.21, ITI COLONY, CHIKKAMARANAHALLI, NEW BEL ROAD, MATHIKERE, BANAGLORE – 560 094.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner herein has called in question the notice bearing No.GBC (1)98/DD(FP)/HRPR/2017 dated 05.01.2018 issued by the 2^nd respondent under Section 13 of Karnataka Fire Service Act, 1964 at Annexure-A, intimation bearing No.AEE/C.O&M/C6/AET/AAO 271 dated 31.05.2018 issued by the 3^rd respondent at Annexure-J and to quash the final notice bearing No.GBC(1)98/UOONI(ANI)/H.R.P.R./2017 dated 05.03.2018 issued by the 2^nd respondent at Annexure-H.

¶26

The brief facts leading to filing of the writ petition are that:

¶27

¶28

WP No. 40490 of 2018

¶29

The petitioner is running the business of hospitality and has established one such unit at No.21, ITI Layout, Chikkamaranahalli, New BEL Road Corporation Ward No.4, Bengaluru and has taken lease of the premises from the erstwhile owner and the lease deed was executed on 02.04.2016. It is stated that the lessor has obtained necessary sanction plan to put up the building over the petition property and the construction was put up in the year 2006-2007 and the height of the building is below 15 meters and does not come under the purview of high rise building.

¶30

It is stated that the petitioner is running the business in the said lease premises since 2016. The respondent exercising the power conferred under Section 13 of the Karnataka Fire Services Act, 1964 has issued a notification dated 07.07.2011. This being so, the respondents in the guise of notification dated 07.07.2011, has issued impugned notice dated 05.01.2018 and final notice dated 05.03.2018 stating that the petitioner has violated the fire safety measure.

¶31

Pursuant to the notice issued by the respondent, the petitioner has given reply at Annexures-E and G stating

¶32

¶33

WP No. 40490 of 2018

¶34

that necessary fire prevention measures have been taken by installing fire extinguishers, which are checked and filled recently as per NBC rules and also stated that the petitioner also forwarded the photographs showing the Fire extinguisher established at appropriate places. It appears that, in spite of petitioner having brought to the notice of the respondents that all the safety measures have been initiated and the petitioner does not fall under the criteria of high rise building since the building was completed much prior to the issuance of notification dated 07.07.2011.

¶35

It is stated that the impugned notice at Annexure-A dated 05.01.2018, intimation dated 31.05.2018 at Annexure-J are without considering the grievance of the petitioner and consequently, the final notice dated 05.03.2018 at Annexure-H is without hearing the petitioner.

¶36

Heard Sri. S. Kalyan Basavaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Anitha .N, learned HCGP for the 1^st and 2^nd respondents-State and Sri. V.N. Murthy, learned counsel for 3^rd respondent.

¶37

¶38

WP No. 40490 of 2018

¶39

The material on record would reveal, that the

¶40

petitioner was issued with notice on 05.01.2018 at Annexure-A, pursuant to which, the petitioner has filed his reply at Annexure-E dated 02.02.2018 and Annexure-G dated 12.06.2018 stating that the petitioner has taken all the safety measures of fire safety in the petition premises by providing requisite set backs and has taken fire safety measures as provided by NOC from the Fire Department and safety measures as per ZR-NBC and Gas Cylinder Rules 2004.

¶41

It is also relevant to note that, the leased property was constructed way back in the year 2006-2007 and the impugned notice issued by the respondent is based on the notification dated 07.07.2011 to which the petitioner has given reply. However, the respondent without taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner has issued the final notice. It is the case of the petitioner that, at the time of issuing final notice, the petitioner was not heard and the principles of natural justice has been violated.

¶42

¶43

WP No. 40490 of 2018

¶44

For the reasons stated supra, this Court is of the

¶45

considered view that the impugned notices at Annexures-A, H and J are not sustainable.

¶46

In view of the above, this Court pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i. The writ petition is hereby allowed. ii. The impugned the notice bearing No.GBC (1)98/DD(FP)/HRPR/2017 dated 05.01.2018 issued by the 2^nd respondent under Section 13 of Karnataka Fire Service Act, 1964 at Annexure-A , intimation bearing No.AEE/C.O&M/C6/AET/AAO 271 dated 31.05.2018 issued by the 3^rd respondent at Annexure-J and the final notice bearing No.GBC(1)98/UOONI(ANI)/H.R.P.R./2017 dated 05.03.2018 issued by the 2^nd respondent at Annexure-H are hereby quashed.

¶49

iii. The respondents to reconsider the reply after affording reasonable and sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within an outer limit

¶50

¶51

WP No. 40490 of 2018

¶52

of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶53

iv. It is needless to observe that the petitioner is at liberty to place all the materials before the respondents for having taken safety measures.

¶54

v. All the contentions of the parties are kept open to be urged before the competent authorities.

¶55

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶56

SD/JUDGE

¶57

MBM

M/S. Nandana Foods Pvt. Ltd., v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Nandana Foods Pvt. Ltd., 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 M N Nagaraja Vs Smt J B Jayanthi

Sri. H. R. Srinivas Vs Smt. Shruthi. M. K.

Miss Sarika Nataraj T Vs the Regional Manager

Sureshbabu C Vs Vinitha

A. Gnanendra Vs Sri Dharmaraya Swamy Temple

Mrs. Shuaiba Rahaman Vs the State of Karnataka