Asharaf Kuttikkandy Vs the Medical Officer of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Asharaf Kuttikkandy Vs the Medical Officer of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Final notice dated 10.02.2026 (Annexure-B) against petitioner no.1 quashed, subject to his undertaking to conduct business in accordance with law without encroaching upon the footpath or causing nuisance, and subject to the result of W.P.No.33671/2025; writ petition of petitioner no.1 disposed of accordingly; writ petition of petitioner nos.2 to 5 dismissed as withdrawn.

Issue for consideration

Whether the final notice dated 10.02.2026 issued by the respondent to petitioner no.1, calling upon him to close his condiment-shop business on the allegation that he was encroaching upon the footpath, ought to be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

The writ petition filed by petitioner nos.2 to 5 stands dismissed, following their submission in the course of arguments that their prayer may be dismissed as withdrawn.

Ratio / Principle

No person is entitled to conduct a business by encroaching upon the footpath or creating nuisance to pedestrians or the neighbours; business must be conducted in accordance with law, and if violated, the respondent authorities are at liberty to take necessary action.

Key takeaways

The purpose of administrative action by the authorities concerned is to regulate the conduct of business in accordance with law and not to rob the livelihood of a particular person to conduct a business.ratio¶¶39
The final notice dated 10.02.2026 (Annexure-B) issued to petitioner no.1 stands quashed, subject to his undertaking to conduct his business in accordance with law without encroaching upon the footpath or causing nuisance to pedestrians or neighbours, and subject to the result of the proceedings in W.P.No.33671/2025.ratio¶¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LB-BMP), High Court of Karnataka (Justice M.I. Arun), decided 06.04.2026 — Five petitioners of Yelahanka New Town, Bengaluru challenged notices dated 10.02.2026 issued by the Medical Officer of Health, Yelahanka Sub-Division, Zone-2, Bengaluru North City Corporation. Petitioner no.1, holder of a trade licence for a condiment shop at No.200-A, SFS-208, Dairy Circle, was called upon to close his business on the allegation that he encroached upon the footpath by displaying his shop's name board and keeping articles for sale thereon, obstructing pedestrians, and owing to pendency of W.P.No.33671/2025. Petitioner nos.2 to 5, running independent shops, were noticed (Annexures-B1 to B4) for allegedly conducting business illegally without trade licences. Held: no person is entitled to conduct business by encroaching upon the footpath or creating nuisance to pedestrians or neighbours; business must be conducted in accordance with law, failing which authorities may act; the purpose of administrative action is to regulate the conduct of business in accordance with law and not to rob the livelihood of a person. The final notice against petitioner no.1 was quashed subject to his undertaking to conduct business in accordance with law without encroaching the footpath or causing nuisance, and subject to the result of W.P.No.33671/2025; his writ petition was disposed of accordingly. Petitioner nos.2 to 5 sought withdrawal and their writ petition stood dismissed.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18407 WP No. 10308 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.10308 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

ASHARAF KUTTIKKANDY S/O KUTTIKANDIYIL KUNHIMOOSA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

JALAJA S. D/O R. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

MOHAMMAD ASLAM N.P. S/O ABDULLA N. AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SHIVAIAH @ UPPALA SHIVAIAH S/O UPPALA NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

SHIVA SHANKAR S. S/O N. SOMASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

ALL ARE R/AT NO.200-A SFS-208, DAIRY CIRCLE YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU-560 064.

&PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. R.S.RAVI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. V. CHANDRAPPA, ADVOCATE)

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18407 WP No. 10308 of 2026

HC-KAR

AND:

THE MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH YELAHANKA SUB-DIVISION, ZONE-2 BENGALURU NORTH CITY CORPORATION BENGALURU-560 064.

&RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. B.S. KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED NOTICES DATED 10.02.2026 VIDE DOC NO.¨ÉA.G.£À.¥Á./D/ªÉÊ/AiÀÄ.ªÀ/¦Dgï/241A/2025-26 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURES 'B', 'B.1' TO 'B.4' AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner no.1 is said to have obtained a trade license to establish a condiment shop at property bearing No.200-A, SFS208, Diary Circle, Yalahanka New Town, Bengaluru and is said to have been running a business. On the allegation that petitioner no.1 is conducting his business by encroaching upon a portion of the footpath by placing a board displaying his

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18407 WP No. 10308 of 2026

HC-KAR

shop's name and also keeping certain articles for sale on the footpath and thereby obstructing the smooth movement of the pedestrians on the footpath and also because of pendency of W.P.No.33671/2025, a notice has been issued to petitioner no.1 calling upon him to close the business. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

No person is entitled to conduct a business by encroaching upon the footpath or creating nuisance to the pedestrians or the neighbors. The business has to be conducted in accordance with law. If the same is violated, respondent authorities are at liberty to take necessary action.

In the course of arguments, petitioner no.1 undertakes to conduct the business in accordance with law and to remove the name board and the articles kept on the footpath.

With regard to other petitioners, they are having their independent shops and notices have been issued to them (vide Annexures-B1 to B4 to the writ petition) alleging that they are conducting business illegally without obtaining necessary trade licence.

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18407 WP No. 10308 of 2026

HC-KAR

Petitioner nos.2 to 5, in the course of the arguments, submit that the prayer made by them in the writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn.

As already noted above, no one has a right to conduct business in violation of the law. However, they are at liberty to conduct their business in accordance with law. The purpose of the administrative action by the authorities concerned is to regulate the conduct of the business in accordance with law and not to rob the livelihood of a particular person to conduct a business. Under the circumstances, when petitioner no.1 is agreeable to conduct his business in accordance with law there is no harm in allowing the writ petition to that extent subjecting him to comply with the law strictly and also subject to the result of the proceedings in W.P.No.33671/2025.

Hence, the following:

ORDER

The final notice dated 10.02.2026 issued by the respondent (vide Annexure-B to the writ petition) to petitioner no.1 stands quashed subject to petitioner no.1's undertaking to conduct his business in accordance with law without

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18407 WP No. 10308 of 2026

HC-KAR

encroaching upon the footpath and causing nuisance to the

pedestrians or the neighbors.

The writ petition filed by petitioner no.1 stands disposed

of accordingly.

The writ petition filed by petitioner nos.2 to 5 stands dismissed.

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7