Sri Muniraju Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri Muniraju Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

All six writ petitions disposed of. In the five notice-petitions (WP Nos.14469/2025, 14372/2025, 14384/2025, 14393/2025, 14395/2025), the show cause notices were not quashed; each petitioner was directed to reply to the notice within two weeks, with respondent No.3 (Health Officer, BBMP) to proceed thereafter in accordance with law and barred from taking precipitative action until then (IA No.1/2025 disposed of in WP Nos.14384, 14393 and 14395 of 2025). In WP No.2659/2024, respondent No.2 (Asst Executive Engineer, BBMP) was directed to take immediate action to consider the petitioner's representation within three weeks, with compliance listed on 16.12.2025.

¶7 (WP No.14469 of 2025)

Issue for consideration

In WP Nos.14469/2025, 14372/2025, 14384/2025, 14393/2025 and 14395/2025: whether the show cause notices issued by respondent No.3 (Health Officer, BBMP) pursuant to this Court's direction in WP No.3676/2008 — premised on the Notification dated 20.03.2015 and revised master plan 2015 barring commercial activity alongside roads less than 40 feet wide — were liable to be quashed despite the petitioners' trade licences and claimed pre-BBMP business operations. +1 more

¶5 (WP No.14469 of 2025)

Court's answer

WP No.14469 of 2025: The notice having been issued pursuant to this Court's own direction in WP No.3676/2008, the petitioner was bound to reply to the notice rather than rush to the writ court; the notice cannot be quashed. The writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to reply to the notice within two weeks, respondent No.3 thereafter to proceed in accordance with law, and no precipitative action to be taken by respondent No.3 until then.

¶7 (WP No.14469 of 2025)

Ratio / Principle

WP No.14372 of 2025: On identical reasoning — the notice flowed from this Court's direction in WP No.3676/2008 and the petitioner should have replied to it instead of approaching the Court — the notice cannot be quashed; the writ petition is disposed of directing a reply within two weeks, respondent No.3 thereafter to proceed in accordance with law, and no precipitative action until then.

¶7 (WP No.14372 of 2025)

Key takeaways

WP No.14384 of 2025: Same disposition — notice issued pursuant to WP No.3676/2008 cannot be quashed; petitioner directed to reply within two weeks; respondent No.3 to proceed in accordance with law thereafter without precipitative action meanwhile; IA No.1/2025 stands disposed of.ratio¶7 (WP No.14384 of 2025)
WP No.14393 of 2025: Same disposition — notice issued pursuant to WP No.3676/2008 cannot be quashed; petitioner directed to reply within two weeks; respondent No.3 to proceed in accordance with law thereafter without precipitative action meanwhile; IA No.1/2025 stands disposed of.ratio¶7 (WP No.14393 of 2025)

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

NC: 2025:KHC:46669 | High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (R. Nataraj, J.), Oral Order dated 12.11.2025 — Six connected LB-BMP writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. (i) Five petitioners carrying on commercial activity in New Thippasandra / HAL III Stage, Bangalore, challenged show cause notices issued by respondent No.3, Health Officer, C.V. Raman Nagar Division, BBMP, pursuant to this Court's earlier direction in WP No.3676/2008, alleging that their premises lay within Ring No.2 of the revised master plan 2015 alongside roads less than 40 feet wide in contravention of the Department of Urban Development Notification dated 20.03.2015; each petitioner held a trade licence and claimed to be in business even before the area merged into BBMP (2002-03). HELD: the notices having issued pursuant to this Court's own direction, the petitioners were bound to reply to the notices rather than rush to the writ court; the notices could not be quashed; each petition disposed of directing a reply within two weeks, respondent No.3 to proceed thereafter in accordance with law and to take no precipitative action meanwhile (IA No.1/2025 likewise disposed of in three matters). (ii) WP No.2659/2024 (Karunakara Shetty) sought mandamus to consider representations regarding basement parking of 'Alfa Diamond Plaza' being used for commercial purposes despite a Lokayuktha inspection report and an unanswered status report dated 23.09.2019; noting the respondents' assurance, the Court disposed of the petition directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation within three weeks, compliance listed on 16.12.2025.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Show cause notices issued by respondent No.3 (Health Officer, C.V. Raman Nagar Division, BBMP) calling upon the respective petitioners to show cause why action should not be initiated to close down their commercial activities, on the ground that the premises lie within Ring No.2 of the revised master plan 2015 alongside roads less than 40 feet wide, contrary to the Notification dated 20.03.2015 of the Department of Urban Development¶1 (WP No.14469 of 2025)
Respondent No.3, Health Officer, C.V. Raman Nagar Division, BBMP · 28.12.2022 (WP No.14469 of 2025); 01.09.2023 (WP No.14372 of 2025); 16.09.2023 (WP No.14393 of 2025); 19.04.2025 (WP No.14384 of 2025 and WP No.14395 of 2025)
Prior proceeding
The impugned notices were issued pursuant to a direction issued by this Court in WP No.3676/2008; the petitioners were not parties to that proceeding¶6 (WP No.14469 of 2025)
Prior proceeding
Each notice-petitioner holds a trade licence from the Municipal Corporation (e.g., obtained 2019-2020 onwards, valid up to 31.03.2030) and contends the licence accords with the Corporation's byelaws¶2 (WP No.14469 of 2025)
Prior proceeding
The premises of the notice-petitioners earlier lay within the limits of a City Municipal Council and were included in the limits of the Municipal Corporation (BBMP) in 2002-2003; petitioners claim to have carried on business even before the area came within BBMP limits¶2 (WP No.14469 of 2025)
Prior proceeding
In WP No.2659 of 2024, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Lokayuktha regarding use of the basement parking area (reserved for parking as per sanctioned plan) of 'Alfa Diamond Plaza' for commercial purposes; after inspection the Lokayuktha reported the parking space was used for illegal commercial activities¶2 (WP No.2659 of 2024)
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2 filed a status report dated 23.09.2019 before the Lokayuktha seeking two months to clear the parking space but took no steps¶2 (WP No.2659 of 2024)
Prior proceeding
Petitioner submitted a representation dated 19.06.2020 to respondent No.2 and a further representation dated 31.12.2023 to respondent No.1; neither was considered¶2 (WP No.2659 of 2024)