High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Energie Inc., vs The Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara … on 30 July, 2010

Karnataka High Court
M/S Energie Inc., vs The Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara … on 30 July, 2010
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRLY. HG. THISV.E--'rf«\Y,
THE COURT MADE THE F'O£_LOWIl\§G:  *

ORDER

The petitioner has raised the chalienge to the”

order, dated 31.03.2010 (Annexure-H)!’ ca,ti.;e.iiiiir:,g’*’_ttié”-trade,E§ E

licence granted to her.

2. The facts of the casegin brief-~-are–.that theé’pr’0.prietrix of

the petitioner is the owner oi”i’flat”,i$I’0.}1CE”:i.rii.V:the apartments

known as Eden Hall, Jayamahai
&Extension, Bangalore’:,¢_’V*._frgi3″haswlbeen running a
beauty parlor,.a,n’d’i..f’sp’a:;..A:it premises from
29.10.2009. on th:eA,.:_n”ei;giibours Compiaining to the

respondents, the’trade,vlicfen4t;e to be canceiied.
Ag-dfie-ix-dd by theiséhie, this petition is instituted.

4.’~.S’ri_V.’KVai«{}_an”§B’asavaraj, the learned counsel for the

petitioner clornp’-ivalinsfof the violations of the principies of naturai

tieosublrnits that the respondents have canceiied the

EV”i.tr,adeAj_.iiéelncej without affording the single opportunity to the

1.,p_etitio’n’e’r0f being heard in the matter.

RBH.

5. Sri G.M.Chandrashei<ar, the tearned counsel for the

respondents submits that there cannot be any comnie.rciaii~.._

activities in the apartments in question. While sancti_on.i.ng5.tjh—-eT

pian to the buiider and white gtanting the .o,ccupan_cy"'ce.rtifi'cate.,

it was made clear by the respondents that the;ap..a'rtr'nen.ts' atreifto

be used oniy and exciusiveiy for resid'e_nt~i.ai purposes.

6. The impugned order isfiéahbie_.tomb’e–.’qiijashed o’n”t’n’e short
ground of the vioiation of the princ’i’pi:es_.~..oi’.AA_’;nat_urai justice.

Accordingiy it is quashed’.««g..Vg:h.’~

7. Both are directed to
treat the impugned ‘eindorser’ne’nti’it»s_eif as the showwcause notice.
The petitioner toqfiii-ehheérittreply/objections within one
week. from,,._thetr.da’te ‘issuance of the certified copy of

toda’-,I_’s.or’der. Thereafter, it is for the respondents to consider

Ijthe peif’itio’ner’s’:o_bj_ec.t’i’o.ns and the neighbours’ objections and

v7tai<e .a decis"'ion'*-.'in the matter. Needless to observe that it is aiso

the respondents to continue the trade iicence of the

putting her on such terms as are permissible in iaw

the safeguards against nuisance to the neighbours. -/:\ii

.7.rtiietécontentions are kept open.

HRH

8. Writ petition is accordéngiy disposed of. No order a_s,__to

COSYS .

Sdf        F   

bvr