M/S. Sri Balaji Electronics Vs the Arsikere Town

M/S. SRI BALAJI ELECTRONICS A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM HAVING GSTIN : 29CQYPP5376C1Z0 TRADING AT : 04, B H ROAD ARSIKERE, KARNATAKA - 573 103 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT. PRABHA N W/O NARSIMHE GOWDA

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. ADIT CHANDANGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE ARSIKERE TOWN MUNCIPAL COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER ARSIKERE, KARNATAKA - 573 103

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. S VIDYA., ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER BEARING NO-NO.NA.SA.AA/HI.AA.NI/NAI.V/2025-26 DATED 25.04.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-E.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:43313 WP No. 13655 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has challenged a notice/order bearing No.£ÀA.£À.¸À.C./».D.¤./£ É Ê.«./2025-26 dated 25.04.2025 passed by

¶24

the respondent by which, the trade licence granted to it was cancelled. It has also sought for a direction to the respondent to issue a trade licence for the year 2025-26.

¶25

The petitioner is conducting business in electronics under the name and style "Sri. Balaji Electronics" . The petitioner was granted with a trade licence by the respondent for the year commencing from 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024. The petitioner had purportedly made substantial investment in the business and had purportedly complied with all municipal and legal requirements. The trade licence was extended from 01.04.2024 to 31.03.2025. Since the trade licence had expired, the petitioner requested the respondent to renew the trade licence. However, the respondent did not accept the request of the petitioner for renewal of the trade licence. However, the respondent issued a notice/order bearing No. £ÀA.£À.¸À.C./».D.¤./£ É Ê«./2025-26 dated 25.04.2025 canceling the

¶26

trade licence, which purportedly was on the basis of the

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43313 WP No. 13655 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

representation dated 03.04.2025 submitted by a society named, Shri. Shri. Shivananda Shivayogi Rajendra Mahaswamiji, Kodimatt and Ajjampura Shettru Bakkappa Charitable Trust, Haranhalli. The petitioner is therefore, before this Court challenging cancellation of the trade licence.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent before passing the impugned order did not even issue a show cause notice setting out the reasons for cancellation of the trade licence. He submits that the respondent having once issued a trade licence after being satisfied that the business conducted by the petitioner is in accordance with law, could not have unilaterally cancelled it. He further contends that the petitioner has invested substantial sums of money and therefore, cancellation of the trade licence without following due process of law has resulted in untold hardship and injury to the petitioner.

¶31

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has filed a memo and has placed on record the office note leading up to the cancellation of the trade licence issued in favour of the petitioner. He has also placed on record a notice

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:43313 WP No. 13655 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

bearing No.£ÀA.£À.¸À.C./».D.¤./£ É Ê.«./2025-26. dated 07.04.2025

¶35

issued to the petitioner, which was not served but was claimed that the petitioner allegedly rejected it. It is therefore, contended that though the respondent had issued a notice to the petitioner but he had refused to receive the notice and therefore, the respondent was perforced to cancel the trade licence as there was no reply.

¶36

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶37

counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶38

The respondent while acting upon a complaint of Shri. Shri. Shivananda Shivayogi Rajendra Mahaswamiji, must have put the petitioner on notice as to why the trade licence granted to it should not be cancelled. The respondent was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and was adjudicating upon the claim of the said Shri. Shri. Shivananda Shivayogi Rajendra Mahaswamiji. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondent to hear the petitioner before passing drastic order such as cancellation of trade licence, which would have deleterious effect on the business conducted by the petitioner.

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:43313 WP No. 13655 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Even a perusal of the impugned notice/order shows that what

¶43

was issued to the petitioner was a notice but the contents of the notice showed that the respondent had already taken decision to cancel the trade licence granted to the petitioner. It is therefore, more than evident that the impugned notice/order

¶44

was without notice to the petitioner and on this short ground

¶45

alone, the impugned notice/order is liable to be set at nought.

¶46

Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

(i) The petition is allowed .

¶49

(ii) The impugned notice/order bearing No. £ÀA.£À.¸À.C./».D.¤./£ É Ê«./2025-26 dated 25.04.2025

¶50

issued by the respondent is quashed.

¶51

(iii) The impugned notice/order shall be treated as a notice by the respondent to the petitioner and the petitioner shall file its reply to the notice within a period of fifteen days from today.

¶52

(iv) It is open for the respondent to take appropriate decision.

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:43313 WP No. 13655 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

(v) Until then, the respondent shall not disturb or interfere with the business conducted by the petitioner.

¶56

(vi) If the objection raised by Shri. Shri. Shivananda Shivayogi Rajendra Mahaswamiji is not sustainable, the respondent shall also take immediate steps for renewing the trade licence in accordance with law.

¶57

(vii) In view of the disposal of the writ petition, pending I.As., stands disposed off. It is open for the proposed respondent to participate in the proceedings before the respondent in accordance with law.

¶58

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶59

PMR

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

M/S. Sri Balaji Electronics v. the Arsikere Town

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Sri Balaji Electronics v. the Arsikere Town

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Jayamani Vs the Commissioner

Ramanna Since Dead by Legal Representatives Vs Smt Neelavathamma (Husband'S Name Not Known)

Smt Bharathamma N Vs the Commissioner

Sri Mangala Gowramma Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Nalini Parameshwara Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Mr. Somashekar H B Vs the State of Karnataka