High Court Karnataka High Court

Ashok Gouli S/O Tejappa vs The Commissioner Hubli Dharwad on 8 December, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Ashok Gouli S/O Tejappa vs The Commissioner Hubli Dharwad on 8 December, 2008
Author: N.Kumar


. 1

IN THE HIGH C0f§R'”E’ 3? KARKATAKA CI

AT I)i-i&RW’AB .

Dateé this the 8*?” day Qf.I3¢c4embé:*,’ u
Be:p«¢>1″%:§s: _ « * 1 ‘ 4’ V N

THE !{0N’BLE m1’i;,.-«…:j;s?;42c’E 3.

Writ Petition N0. 31%r34@;.£ 2003″ gigjslieifits}

Betxveenr

Ashok Cronki-

Sfo Tejappa _ .

Age: 38 yeaxts V
Occz Mi11{;’&?ci1:iO1=~- 7:; V

R10 ‘if,efi:I::1:>16″ ‘ A: ‘
Near H–os.ayai1a§i:;;f * V
Ka}g}1atagiTRG;1d ”

‘ Dharésad ‘

533;:

.. . Pehltienai’

Sui. Kaiwad, Advocate)

_ ‘;’i’}1t:– Cemmissioner
” . I«~1_11i2li :2; Qhazwaé Municipal
V'(,’~c;%i;t:>o’:”§31iioIz

p1:a.%~;ma

~~ Ladwa

“310 Prabhakar

Age: 32 years

Occ: Business

R] 0 Near Valmiki Temple
Opp; MC Quarters
Kalghatagi Road

Dhaxwad . ‘ . Responcieiits

This Writ Petitiorx is flied undar Art:c1es.–i§£§6 rgf
the Consfitufion of fndia, praying to quash Axi32.§:xujra~F; _fiCet;:se”-._
No.2946 dated 1/ 4 j 2004 granted by respeziiciénif-3: in i’Z:w«::s1,1r of

rcsp0né.ent»2 to carry the b11Si1fiEtSS”‘C3’ _W{)0(f} .wi:;«3:”_i§ bu;s:é:issg.
and cl1i11}’§I’i}:1dé11g11nit. = = v ” ”

‘I’his Writ Petition coming on fbrj this

day, the Court made the follotxzingz

9″;

The petgtjiutrger Wm’: petitien the
liccace is;sua§ d §i;_;s’£.::5Si3€%}Ei%i%fi€;;C3ommissioxzer, H ubli-:
carrying on the business
of hales and potmding sf dry

Chimes.’ ‘

A-J

:’)’, ” The giievance of the pctitioner is that fhe second

Visxsjgfibundmg the dry Chiiiies amt} not grinfiing the

same. _*’I”:.1:%refc;:r€ under tha Act t§1{‘:’3{‘6 is no provission for

:gI}311tii.I’ig:SL1C}.’1 licence. By vixiuc of the licencs granted, tbs

” secqiid responfient is carrying an the said. busirzess whicil is

VM dausul noise Elation arid n.uisaz;ce is the ad'<:=i11i:z1

k/"

residenm: includmg the pefitianér. ‘E’hereibm=,
for writ of mandamus to quash the 581:}, 1icc«:ncf:- u ”

3. Sttction 3:33 0f
Corporatian Act, 1976 pmvidé$–_fé h*at nfi
of thc City 31253} ha ‘i,1s€d_ for az;y–«<;f"L$hé–»pzzrfiésfr-ms:ta;fione£i in
schaéulfi X witilout at Ii#:éé'r.:;§:e– 'the Commissioneir
and except in ua";.3ec§1ied therein.
Schrz-tduie 1G. fer the p11rp0s::: of
gr;'z1dir:.g," ($3: retail of starring for
snvlxoieéeiisé ' "Ii categonicaily prcavidess far
grinding the premisfis in quastien is

situateédv withiz: flagffimitfis of ctity, the second réspondfini cught

I V fictfffiission for grindizlg chillies. The.re is no specific

<:l1i11ies._ The werci gxiuding includes

p012114:ii:1g_va':~:. in that View of the matter when the seczanci

fe$pon&en'§ has obfamsd licence as requireei unéar iaw anci is

T an his busiziess, the petitioner has 110 100113 standi ta

:<; }:;;%}I6:11ge thér said order. If he is aggrieved by Carryirxg on thfi

{said business, it is causing naise poihmian 01' health hazard,

the said fact has to be prcsvcd after trial in a ¢empeientV.C i_'1}.§%2I'V' ~.~

Court Where fhsy can agtate the matter. 1 {is net a:1§3. V

mm/'fizinthis writ petition. Accozfimg" 13;, it: _V "