Disposed

Sri Beguraiah v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC28 Oct 2024WP/6331/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A licensed flour mill owner challenged BBMP's decision to stop and re-locate his business on zonal regulation and noise pollution grounds, plus BESCOM's electricity disconnection. The court declined to interfere on the zoning point but reserved liberty for damages claims and directed BESCOM to review the disputed bills.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to claim damages for licence granted contrary to regulations; petitioner may file order copy with BESCOM within 3 weeks, which must consider it within 8 weeks; approvals for permitted

Sri Beguraiah Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara… — Environment and Pollution | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:43403 WP No. 6331 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6331 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI BEGURAIAH S/O KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, KEERTHI FLOUR MILL, WARD NO. 69, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, RAJIVGANDHINAGARA, CHOWDESHWARINAGARA, LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560058.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SMT. ANAGHA J. PRAKASH.,ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER, OFFICE AT N.R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002.

¶12

THE MEDICAL OFFICER BBMP, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA ZONE, IDELA HOMES LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA, BENGALURU-560098.

¶13

THE HELATH OFFICER BBMP, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA ZONE,

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:43403 WP No. 6331 of 2024

¶15

IDELA HOMES LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA, BENGALURU-560098.

¶16

BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED CORPORATE OFFICE,BESCOM, K.R CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001.

¶17

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE OF COMMERCE, WORKS AND MANITENANCE, BESCOM, NO.4, NORTH SUB DIVISION, BESCOM, PEENYA, BENGALURU-560058.

¶18

KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT

¶19

1^ST FLOOR, NISARGA BHAVAN, 7^TH D CROSS, THIMMAIAH ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560010.

¶20

ENVIRONMENT OFFICER REGIONAL OFFICER WEST, KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT

¶21

1^ST FLOOR, NISARGA BHAVAN,

¶22

7^TH D CROSS, THIMMAIAH ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560010.

¶23

SRI CHANDRAPPA S/O UNKNOWN TO PETITIONER MAJOR IN AGE

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:43403 WP No. 6331 of 2024

¶26

9. SRI. GOVINDARAJU

¶27

S/O UNKNOWN TO PETITIONER MAJOR IN AGE

¶28

RESPONDENTS NO. 8 & 9 ARE

¶29

RESIDENTS OF 4^TH CROSS 5^TH MAIN ROAD RAJIVGANDHI NAGARA, LAGGERE WARD NO.69 BENGLAURU -560058.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI.K.S. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SMT. ANUSHA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5; SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R7; R8 SERVED; SRI. VINAY KUTTAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R9)

¶32

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE R2 NO. 386/2023-2024 DATED 26.6.23, AT ANNEXURE-U, COMMUNICATION NO. 132/2023-24 DATED 29.8.23, AT ANNEXURE-X AND SUBSEQUENT ORDER 7/2023-24 DATED 29.8.23, AT ANNEXURE-Y; SETTING ASIDE THE COMMUNCIATION OF THE R5 NO. 4277 DATED 29.3.23, AT ANNEXURE-L AND THEIR SUBSEQUENT ACTION OF DISCONNECTING ELECTRICITY TO THE PETITIONERS FLOUR MILL ON 18-04-23.

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:43403 WP No. 6331 of 2024

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

The petitioner is issued with a license to run a Flour Mill in a property at Ward No.69. 2^nd Main Road, Rajiv Gandhinagar, Chowdeshwari Nagara, Laggere, Bengaluru - 560 058, and this license is renewed from time to time. The petitioner has impugned the Endorsement dated 26.06.2023 [ Annexure-U ] issued by the second respondent informing him that the Flour Mill is in a property in a Residential Main Zone abutting a road that is 20 feet in width and that this activity is not permissible in such Zone [ according to the Zonal Regulations ] unless the property abuts a road which is not less than 40 feet in width.

¶39

The second respondent has also referred to the noise pollution caused by the Flour Mill. The petitioner has impugned the other communications/orders, which consequentially

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:43403 WP No. 6331 of 2024

¶42

require the petitioner to re-locate the Flour Mill to another property. The petitioner has also sought for directions to the fourth respondent to restore the electricity and to withdraw the electricity bills issued. Ms. Anagha J. Prakash, the learned counsel for the petitioner, points out what might be anomalies in the report filed by the Pollution Control Board to substantiate her case that the petitioner cannot be asked to stop his business alleging noise pollution.

¶43

However, Ms. Anagha J. Prakash cannot refute the respondents' case that a Flour Mill could be permitted to operate in Residential Main Zone only if it abuts a road which is 40 feet in width. This Court must opine that if the Zonal Regulations do not permit such activity and if this is one reason to stop such activity, there is no reason for interference. The petition must fail insofar as it relates to the challenge to the decision to stop the business and to re-locate.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:43403 WP No. 6331 of 2024

¶46

Ms. Anagha J. Prakash next submits that

¶47

this Court must note the fact that despite the Revised Master Plan 2015 and the Regulations the petitioner has been issued with Trade Licence and granted regular renewals and encouraging the petitioner to avail loan and he is now made to suffer losses. If the law did not permit the petitioner to issue Trade Licence, this Court cannot restore the position permitting the petitioner to operate the Flour Mill. If the licence is granted despite the Bye laws/Regulations, and if the petitioner can prove this [or any other aspect that may be necessary to be proved in law to claim damages], he must be at liberty, and such liberty is reserved accordingly subject to all just exceptions.

¶48

The other aspect of the petitioner's case is

¶49

that the respondents have raised a claim for electricity charges based on a certain consumption though the Flour Mill is stopped. This Court is of the

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:43403 WP No. 6331 of 2024

¶52

considered view that the petitioner must be at liberty to file a certified copy of this order with the fifth respondent who should consider the circumstances relied upon by the petitioner before insisting upon payment of electricity in terms of the relevant rules. Hence, the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

[i] The petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail his remedy as against his claim in granting trade licence contrary to the Bye-laws /Zonal Regulations. The petitioner is also reserved with the liberty to file a certified copy of this order and all documents with the fifth

¶55

respondent to show that the Electricity Bills have been raised without Flour Mill being in use.

¶56

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:43403 WP No. 6331 of 2024

¶57

[ii] The petitioner will be at liberty to file a certified copy as aforesaid within three [3] weeks from the date of receipt thereof and the fifth respondent is directed to consider the same within an outer limit of eight weeks.

¶58

[iii] Further, this Court must observe that the outcome of these proceedings shall not preclude howsoever the petitioner's entitlement for approvals and permissions under law for use of the property for the permitted uses.

¶59

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶60

SA ct:sr

Sri Beguraiah v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Beguraiah v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

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

Ashok M D Vs the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri G H Sridhar Vs the Chief Commissioner

Smt J Jayalakshmi Vs the Commissioner

Syeda Zohra Jamal Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

M/S Control Engineers Vs the Commissioner

M/S Prana Ventures Vs State of Karnataka