M/S Kamat Yatrinivas Pvt Ltd vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara … on 30 September, 2010

 : V A.  '

EWHEMHGHCOURTOFKARNATAKAATBANGALORES

DATED THIS THE 307" DAY OE SEPTEMBER, 2010-f  Q

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NA.OAMOEAI\f   'V

WRIT PETITION No.14os9/zoia(Li3;EMP--)_ '    

BETWEEN:

M/S KAMAT YATRINIVAS P3/"T.L'f--'D.,:. V  ~  
1" FLOOR, THIMMAIAH CHAMBERS'; 
GANDHINAGAR, I   q ..
BENGALORE--560V0€)9.-._  V'   
REPRESENTED     " 
MANAGING      I

Mr.A.S.KAMAT"'5{_., H    % _T
AGE:55 YEAR-S'. A  _ ...PETITIONER

(By Sri ARV1N]5IKAM;AT}uI;A.AD§Z;, FOR
M/S ALMT LEGAL; ADVS.)

  _1. BRUHAT I3xA~N_fifi--AI.ORE MAHANAGARA

PALIKE, J_'_;C.Rf)AD,
'BANGALORE A 560 002,

.. , S REPRESEVNTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

_ xi'-*'\'

5/



2. THE HEALTH OFFICER
BASAVANAGUDI DIVISION,
BRUI-IAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA

PALIKE, BANGALORE. . . . RESPOl\Vi.]M)__l€lSl'Tj.°§'~V..  ~ .

(By Sri.SUBRAMANYA, ADV., FOR R-1 & 2 )

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UENDRERO ARTIcLEs'~22r{"~ V'

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OE'~..INII1AoI'_wI'THA
PRAYER TO QUASH THE IMEUOED ORDER DATED
16.04.2010 PASSED BY THE R-2 ERQIjU(:ED AT ANl\iEXURE-
CAND ETC.   "  " "

THIS WRIT PETITION OOM1I*NG  HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT PASASED THE .EOLL.OwI'NG;

 

 ""     

This wArit_pctition._isfiled"asgaiiist the Order dated 15.04.2010

passed by ;csponden:R.No;' 2 asper Annexure C canceling the license

'V-issiied. in'l"favOlIr olf~t_iIe petitioner to run a hotel. This Court granted

an irI~ter'iIr1order~..and.Athev"same is continued till today.

l2.__Lear:1edl clodnsel for the respondents submit that agaisnt the

~..i.”_f~…impugned o1’dei%~ canceling the license, an appeal is provided under

S.ectlon of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, £976.

;’\..

Reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate appeal

before the competent authority, this writ petition is hereby

off. In the event of petitioner filing an appeal within four i”

today, the Appellate Authority shall consider..t.he_ samehoni ‘neiieiritéi

accordance with law, without reference to the q–iiestiioni’of”d_e’layi. 7]’

View of the fact that the petitioner hadtiaey benefit of interifdordet’;

the same is extended by another; six wee.k.s.:’ «.