Sri. Rangaraju vs The Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 8529 Kant

                           1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                        BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

       WRIT PETITION NO.42790/2015 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

SRI. RANGARAJU
S/O LATE V. CHINNARAPPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT C/O VIJAYALAKSHMI TAILORS
NO.239/1, 11TH 'B' MAIN
RAJAJINAGAR 2ND BLOCK,
BANGALORE - 10.
                                            ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.N.MADHUSUDHAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE COMMISSIONER
       BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
       N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 001

2.     THE MEDICAL OFFICER FOR HEALTH
       RAJAJINAGAR RANGE
       BANGALORE CITY CORPORATION
       BANGALORE-560001.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. ARAVIND M. NEGLUR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NOS.1 AND 2)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED        ENDORSEMENT        BEARING      NO.Aa.Y.
(Ra.Na)/P.R./199/15-16 DATED 04.09.2015 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND THEREBY ALLOW
                                     2




THIS PETITIONER TO RUN TAILORING SHOP IN THE ABOVE
MENTIONED ADDRESS AND ETC.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

The petitioner has challenged an endorsement dated

04.09.2015 issued by the respondent No.2, by which, an

application filed by the petitioner for grant of trade license

to run a tailoring shop was rejected.

2. The petitioner claims that he is carrying on

tailoring work in a part of the premises bearing

No.239/11th B main road, Rajajinagar, 2nd Block,

Bengaluru - 560 010, under the name and style of

Vijayalakshmi Tailors. The petitioner claims that he has

been doing so since last 50 years. He further claims that

though tailoring is not akin to manufacturing and no

license is required under Section 353 of the Karnataka

Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, he received a notice from

respondent No.2 stating that the petitioner is carrying on

business in an area reserved for residential purposes in

the zonal regulations and therefore, directed the closure

of business within three days from the date of receipt of

the notice. Later, on 21.12.2014, the Joint Commissioner

of the respondent No.1 addressed a communication calling

upon the petitioner and other similarly situated persons to

face an enquiry. The petitioner submitted his objections

and claimed that the complainant at whose instance, the

respondent No.2 had issued notice was a habitual

complainant who was lodging complaints against

everybody in the locality. On 08.04.2015, the petitioner

received a notice in the form of an order of closure from

the respondent No.2 stating that the petitioner is carrying

on business in residential zone as per the zonal regulation

and therefore, directed to close the business and vacate

the business within three days.

3. Aggrieved by the said closure order dated

27.03.2015, the petitioner challenged the same before this

Court in W.P.No.15389/2015. This Court, in terms of the

order dated 16.06.2015, directed the respondents to

consider the application for grant of trade license within

two weeks. As directed by this Court, the petitioner applied

for trade license on 24.06.2015. Since the application was

not considered, the petitioner filed contempt petition in

CCC.1042/2015. During the pendency of contempt

petition, the respondent No.1 issued an endorsement

dated 04.09.2015 stating that the petitioner is not entitled

for the trade license to carryon business of tailoring as per

order of this Court dated 19.02.2015 in

W.P.Nos.3676/2008 and 43472-474/2015.

4. Feeling aggrieved by aforesaid rejection, the

present petition is filed.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that

the petitioner has been conducting tailoring work in the

premises for the last 50 years and therefore, the

respondent No.2 cannot closedown his establishment on

the ground that it violated the zoning regulation.

6. Learned counsel further reiterated that the

petitioner is not indulging any manufacturing activity but

he is a self employed individual who is carrying on activity

in a part of the premises and that the usage of the

premises has not caused any nuisance to any residence.

He further submits that as per the zoning regulation,

tailoring is a permitted activity in a residential area.

Therefore, the rejection of the request of the petitioner for

issuance of a trade license on the ground that the

petitioner is conducting business in a residential area, is

illegal and deserves to be interfered.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents

submitted that a Division Bench of this Court took

cognizance of the violation of the zoning regulation and

therefore, directed the implementation of the zoning

regulation in letter and spirit in certain areas of Bengaluru

City, which included Rajajinagar. Therefore, the

respondent No.2 in an effort to regulate the usage for non-

residential purposes in residential areas had rejected the

request of the petitioner for grant of trade license. He

further submitted that as per the notification issued by the

State Government, the Rajajinagar area fell within Ring-1

of the zoning regulations and though tailoring was a

permitted activity in residential area, the road facing the

premises where the petitioner was conducting business

was less than 12 meters wide and therefore, the rejection

of the application of the petitioner was justified.

8. I have considered the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of Section

353 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 read

with Schedule X leaves no doubt that the activity in which

the petitioner is engaged, a trade license had to be

obtained. However, the question that arises for

consideration in this case is whether the petitioner is

entitled to conduct his tailoring work in a part of the

premises which lies within the residential zone. If the

petitioner is conducting tailoring work for 50 years, it is

pre-posterous to now state that as per the zoning

regulations, he cannot conduct the business in a premises

that faces a road measuring 12 meters. The fact that

tailoring is a permitted activity in a residential zone is

undisputed. The only issue is that the premises where the

petitioner is undertaking activity is not facing a 12 meter

road as per the notification issued by the State

Government.

9. In the present case, the impugned

endorsement is issued by the respondent No.2 on the basis

of a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the writ

petition referred supra. There is no application of mind in

so far as the consideration of the application on the basis

whether the road width is 12 meters or more. Since

tailoring is an activity which is permitted in the residential

area, there is no need to dilate any further. The petitioner

is entitled to obtain a trade license for conducting his

business in the premises in question.

10. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is

allowed. The impugned endorsement issued by the

respondent No.2 dated 04.09.2015 is quashed. The

respondent No.2 is directed to grant the trade license to

the petitioner within a period of three months from the

date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Until the

consideration of the application of the petitioner, his

tailoring work in the premises mentioned above shall not

be disturbed. The petitioner shall ensure that no vehicles

belonging to him or his customers is parked for long hours

on the road facing his premises.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NR/-