Karnataka High Court
Smt Sangeetha Banerji vs Sri M Ramesh on 27 June, 2022
Bench: R. Nataraj
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.4765 OF 2018 (LB - RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SANGEETHA BANERJI,
W/O D BANERJI,
AGED 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 305, 2ND STAGE,
SANMARG ROAD,
BEHIND JSS PUBLIC SCHOOL,
MYSORE - 560 011. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.NAGARAJA T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. M. RAMESH,
S/O B. MUDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/O NO. 314, 5TH A CROSS,
SANMARG ROAD,
SIDDARTHANAGAR,
MYSORE - 56011.
2. SRI. N. CHANDRA SHEKAR,
S/O NANJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO.306, 2ND STAGE,
5TH CROSS, BEHIND JSS PUBLIC SCHOOL,
SIDDARTHA LAYOUT,
MYSORE - 56011.
3. MYSORE CITY CORPORATION,
MYSORE.
2
BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
MYSORE - 56011. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.GEETHA DEVI M.P., ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R1 AND R2 - SERVED)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT DATED 16.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-3
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION, MYSORE BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE - L IS NOT JUST AND FAIR AND ETC.,
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged an endorsement dated
16.12.2017 issued by the respondent No.3, by which, an
application filed by the petitioner for trade license to run a
mess and dormitory in the property bearing No.305,
Sanmargh, Siddarthanagar, Mysuru was rejected. The
petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondent
No.3 to renew the trade license.
2. The petitioner claims that she was running a
mess and dormitory in the address mentioned above. The
respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein objected claiming that the
petitioner was running the mess and dormitory in
unhygienic conditions. This led to several complaints
before the jurisdictional Police Station as well as before the
respondent No.3. Consequently, the license that was
granted in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. This
resulted in a suit in O.S.No.824/1999 by the petitioner
against the Urban Development Authority, which was
decreed in her favour. Thereafter, the respondent Nos.1
and 2 filed a suit for declaration in O.S.No.35/2001 that
the mess and dormitory run by the petitioner was illegal
and for consequential relief of perpetual injunction. The
said suit was decreed in terms of the judgment and decree
dated 19.02.2003. An appeal preferred by the petitioner
there against in R.A.No.138/2003 was dismissed and
presently, RSA.No.1758/2015 is pending consideration.
The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was earlier
granted the license to run the mess and dormitory and in
view of the judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.824/1999, the petitioner is entitled to run the
business.
3. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 on
the other hand submitted that the activity undertaken by
the petitioner in the address mentioned above was held to
be illegal by a Court of competent jurisdiction in
O.S.No.35/2001 and therefore, the respondent No.3 is not
obliged in law to renew the license of the petitioner.
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner may renew
her request for renewal of the trade license only after the
disposal of RSA.No.1758/2015 at Annexure-J.
4. If once the activity of the petitioner is termed
illegal by a Court of competent jurisdiction in
O.S.No.35/2001, the petitioner as well as the respondent
No.3 are bound by the same. The petitioner cannot
therefore seek for renewal of the trade license. The right if
any of the petitioner to seek for renewal would arise only
after disposal of RSA.No.1758/2015 and not before that.
5. In that view of the matter, no interference is
called for. Hence, this writ petition lacks merits and the
same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NR/-
