Karnataka High Court
Smt. Hemalatha M vs The Commissioner on 4 March, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A.No.1228/2021
BETWEEN:
SMT. HEMALATHA. M.
D/O LATE S MUDDAVEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT NO.456, 10TH MAIN,
3RD STAGE, 4TH BLOCK,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
BANGALORE-560079.
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER/HUSBAND SRI MOHAN. D.
... APPELLANT
(By Sri M.Shivaprakash, Adv.)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N R SQUARE,
BANGALORE-560002.
2. THE MEDICAL OFFICER HEALTH
BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR ZONE,
BANGALORE-560098.
2
3. SRI SRINIVAS S. GOWDA
S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.15, 1ST CROSS,
GAYATHRI HBCS LAYOUT
BASAVESHWARANAGARA
BANGALORE-560079.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri Rajeswara.P.N., Adv. for C/R3)
This writ appeal is filed under section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, praying to dissolve / vacate
the interim orders passed on IA No.1/2021 in W.P.
No.13134/2021 dated 15.09.2021, consequently to reject the
interim prayer in the writ petition NO.13134/2021, Etc.
This appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day,
Vishwajith Shetty J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
1. This intra court appeal is filed by respondent no.3
challenging the order dated 15.09.2021 passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court on IA-1/2021 in
W.P.No.13134/2021.
2. The parties are referred to by the rank assigned to
them in the writ petition.
3. The petitioner had filed W.P.No.13134/2021 with a
prayer to quash the trade license certificate dated 13.01.2021
(Annexure-A1) with respect to Trade License
No.RR05129746152889705 issued by respondent no.2 in
favour of respondent no.3 and also had sought for a prayer to
quash the renewed trade license issued to respondent no.3.
4. The learned Single Judge of this Court, at the stage of
preliminary hearing, on 22.07.2021, had granted an interim
order staying the operation and execution of the trade license
certificates issued by respondent no.2 as per Annexures-A1 &
A2, until further orders. Though respondent no.3 had entered
caveat, there was no representation on her behalf while the
said order was passed by the learned Single Judge.
Subsequently, IA-1/2021 was filed by respondent no.3 with a
prayer to vacate the said interim order dated 22.07.2021
passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge
after hearing both the parties, vide the order impugned
herein, has rejected IA-1/2021 filed by respondent no.3
seeking vacation of the interim order. Being aggrieved by the
same, respondent no.3 has preferred this appeal.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant/respondent no.3
submits that the learned Single Judge was not justified in
rejecting the application seeking vacation of the interim
order. He submits that the trade license was issued much
earlier to the order of status quo passed in
M.F.A.No.1833/2019 on 05.07.2021. He submits that the
petitioner has not placed correct and true facts before the
learned Single Judge, and therefore, an erroneous order has
been passed by the learned Single Judge. He submits that if
the interim order is not vacated, respondent no.3 who has
made huge investments for the purpose of business will be
put to hardship.
6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the khatha and building sanction plan of the petitioner as
well as the respondent no.3 has been kept in abeyance
pursuant to the order dated 21.12.2019 passed by the Joint
Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP),
Rajarajeshwarinagar Zone, and though respondent no.3 has
filed a writ petition challenging the said order, there is no
interim order in the said writ petition. He submits that this
Court in M.F.A.No.1833/2019 has passed an order directing
both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the
property in dispute. He submits that the learned Single Judge
having appreciated these aspects of the matter, has rightly
dismissed IA-1/2021 and has posted the matter for hearing.
7. The only point that arises for consideration in this
appeal is, whether the learned Single Judge was justified in
dismissing IA-1/2021 filed by respondent no.3 seeking
vacation of the interim order dated 22.07.2021?
8. Respondent no.3 has been granted trade license vide
Annexures-A1 & A2 to carry out business in the name and
stile M/s. Imagineering & Other Associated Business Ventures
at Property No.752/C, Nagarabhavi Main Road, Vinayaka
HBCS Layout, Bengaluru. The Joint Commissioner, BBMP,
Rajarajeshwarinagar Zone, in proceedings which arose on the
complaint of respondent no.3, has passed an order vide
Annexure-U on 21.12.2019 directing the khatas and the plan
sanctioned to the petitioner as well as respondent no.3
relating to their respective properties be kept in abeyance till
the disposal of the suits in O.S.No.1717/1998 and
O.S.No.4938/2018. Therefore, admittedly, the khatha and
plan sanction of the property for which trade license has been
now issued by respondent no.2 are kept in abeyance as on
this date.
9. It is not in dispute that in the writ petition filed by
respondent no.3 challenging the order dated 21.12.2019
passed by the Joint Commissioner, BBMP,
Rajarajeshwarinagar Zone, no interim order has been passed.
Under the circumstances, respondent no.2 was not justified in
issuing the trade license to respondent no.3 for carrying the
business in a property, of which the khatha and plan
sanctioned has been kept in abeyance by the competent
authority. Further, the learned Single Judge has also taken
into consideration the order passed by the coordinate bench
of this Court in M.F.A.No.1833/2019 on 05.07.2021 directing
both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the
properties in dispute. Therefore, we are of the considered
view that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in
rejecting IA-1/2021 filed by respondent no.3 for vacating the
interim order dated 22.07.2021. We, therefore, find no merit
in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
10. However, having regard to the peculiar facts of the case
and also considering the hardship pleaded by respondent
no.3, we request the learned Single Judge to expedite the
hearing of the writ petition and dispose of the same at the
earliest. All contentions of both the parties are kept open to
be urged before the learned Single Judge.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KK
