Disposed

Sapthagiri Enterprises v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Sept 2024WP/26030/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition challenging notices and subsequent locking of the petitioner's premises by the municipal authority. The court held the action of locking premises without a final order was illegal and directed the lock to be opened, while granting liberty to the petitioner to reply to the notices within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Directions to open the lock on or before 23.09.2024; liberty granted to submit reply within 15 days.

Sapthagiri Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:39071 WP No. 26030 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 26030 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SAPTHAGIRI ENTERPRISES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR VENKATA REDDY MAGOD R/O NO 89, KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT RAJAGOPALANGARA KARNATAKA 560058

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. HARSHAVARDHANA M.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SURENDRA Y S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶14

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT R/O VIKASA SOUDHA, DR BR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001

¶16

BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKA R/O HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶17

THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER BBMP DASARAHALLI ZONE, R/O JAIN TEMPLE ROAD, PRASHANTH NAGAR, DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE-57

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:39071 WP No. 26030 of 2024

¶20

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

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1 SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

¶23

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.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the impugned notice dated 06.07.2024 issued by respondent No.4 vide Annexure-D in F.R.No.26179/2024.

¶28

The brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as under:

¶29

The petitioner is s registered company which is under

¶30

the name and style of Sapthagiri Enterprises and is

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39071 WP No. 26030 of 2024

¶32

engaged in the business of sale of component parts and consumables of EDM machines and services with a vast experience in the filed of design and manufacturing of control engineering and automation products. 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 25.06.2024 vide Annexure-C and one more notice dated 06.07.2024 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.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶34

also learned counsel for the respondents.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶36

respondent No.4 issued a notices vide Annexures C and D

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39071 WP No. 26030 of 2024

¶38

directing the petitioner to closedown the business. He submits that no opportunity was provided to the petitioner 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.

¶39

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

¶40

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.

¶41

Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶42

Admittedly, the petitioner is carrying on a

¶43

business in the property in question after obtaining

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:39071 WP No. 26030 of 2024

¶46

necessary permission from the competent authority. Respondent No.4 on the complaint of the localities issued 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.

¶47

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.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:39071 WP No. 26030 of 2024

¶50

Respondent No.4 is directed to open the lock of

¶51

the premises on or before 23.09.2024.

¶52

All the contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶53

Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶54

SSB

Sapthagiri Enterprises v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sapthagiri Enterprises 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

K.Shekar Vs the Commissioner

Sri Venkatesha T v Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.Kamalamma Vs Smt.Pushpavathi

M/S Slv Housing Development Corporation Vs Sri. Umapathy Srinivasa Gowda

Sri. M.K. Raju Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Althaf K Vs Grama Panchayath