Disposed

Damodar Bhandarkar B., v. Commissioner of Police

Karnataka HC21 Feb 2024WP/2869/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Firecracker sellers whose licences were cancelled without notice after a fire incident sought quashing of the endorsement. Finding no notice was issued in violation of natural justice, the court read the endorsement as a show-cause notice and directed reply, consideration and fresh orders.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement read down as show-cause notice; petitioners may reply within four weeks; respondents to pass orders per law within four weeks thereafter; business operation not permitted meanwhile.

Damodar Bhandarkar B., Vs Commissioner of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:7424 WP No. 2869 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 2869 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DAMODAR BHANDARKAR B., S/O. GANAPATHI BHANDARKAR B AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶9

PARTNER OF B GANAPATHI BHANDARKAR AND SONS REG UNDER PARTNERSHIP ACT R/AT NO.1535, 16TH MAIN M C LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, NEAR UDAYA SCHOOL VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560040.

¶10

SRI K.M.S MUTHU RAJAN S/O K M SANGANA NADAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.3, GROUND FLOOR, BINNY MILL ROAD, 2ND CROSS, COTTON PET BANGALORE SOUTH BANGALORE CHICKPETE BANGALORE-560053.

¶11

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

K SUNANDA W/O LATE K.S. UDAYASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶13

PARTNER OF M/S K C SADASHIVAIAH AND SONS REG UNDER PARTNERSHIP ACT R/AT NO.49, 4TH MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560018.

¶14

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:7424 WP No. 2869 of 2024

¶17

AND:

¶18

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BANGALORE HAVING OFFICE AT 2, ALI ASKER ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR BENGALURU-560051.

¶19

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BANGALORE SOUTH EAST DIVISION 19TH MAIN, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, 6TH BLOCK BANGALORE-560095.

¶20

THE CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES PETROLEUM AND EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANIZATION 2ND FLOOR, CITY CENTRE, OPPOSITE TO HOTEL ROOPA BALMATTA ROAD MANGALORE-575001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI, FOR R-3)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER/ENDORSEMENT DATED 4.12.2023 PASSED BY THE R-1 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE IN NO. COPBCP/MAG/MAG(CRK)/5/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A SO FAR AS PETITIONER CONCERN.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:7424 WP No. 2869 of 2024

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers:

¶29

" A. Issue writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the order/Endorsement dated 04.12.2023 passed by the 1^st respondent, Commissioner of police in No.COPBCP/MAG/MAG(CRK)/5/2023, vide

¶30

Annexure-A.

¶31

B. Grant such other relief this Hon'ble court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶32

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.3.

¶33

The petitioners claim to be in operation of the business of sale of fire crackers after having secured licence from the hands of competent authority. It transpires that an untoward incident happens with regard to a firecracker shop at Attibele. It is then all measures are said to have been taken to

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:7424 WP No. 2869 of 2024

¶36

stop such illegal storage of fireworks in their shops. The axe falls on the petitioner even. The licence that stood in the name of the petitioners is cancelled and the cancellation has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

¶37

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the cancellation took away the right to conduct business by the petitioners in terms of licence granted. This could not have been cancelled without at the outset, issuance of a notice, to be in compliance with principles of natural justice.

¶38

The learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that in these cases, in the wake of the incident happening, steps had to be taken immediately to stop illegal storage of fire crackers in the places, where the fire engine also could not enter the place to douse the fire. The learned HCGP would submit that therefore, the notices were not issued to the petitioners and the respondents would undertake on instructions that in future notices would be issued and then action would be taken in accordance with law.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:7424 WP No. 2869 of 2024

¶41

In the light of the said submission, the only issue that falls for consideration is whether the impugned cancellation of the licence of the petitioners was preceded with a notice. The admitted fact is, no notice was issued. Therefore, it is in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned endorsement for the reasons that it is stated, would be read down as a show-cause notice to the petitioners, and the petitioners would be permitted to reply to the same within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

On submission of such reply to the show-cause notice, the respondents - State shall consider the same and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law, within four weeks thereafter, if not earlier. The reading down of the endorsement as a show- cause notice would not mean that the petitioners could be permitted to operate the business. This order is passed in the light of the fact that the reason for cancellation of licence is that the road in which the petitioners are vending the fire crackers business is so narrow that even the fire engine cannot reach the place.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:7424 WP No. 2869 of 2024

¶45

All the consequential action of permitting the

¶46

running of business of the petitioners shall be subject to the orders that would be passed by the respondents as directed

¶47

herein above.

¶48

The writ petition stands disposed, accordingly.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Damodar Bhandarkar B., v. Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Damodar Bhandarkar B., v. Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri B H Kemparaju Vs the Passport Officer

Sri.K.T Jayaramegowda Vs the Janatha Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Sri Venkataramappa Vs State of Karnataka

Staff Merchants Credit Co. Op Society Ltd. Vs Sri Durga Prasad

Sri Mathen Thomas Thoppil Vs Smt Thresi Emmanuel Ramapuram

Spoorthy Integrated Solutions (I) Private Ltd. Vs Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology (K M I O)