Prajwal M R vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 5121 Kant

                             1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

        WRIT PETITION NO.5761 OF 2022 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:
PRAJWAL M.R.,
S/O C.N. RAVICHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/A #2412, HOSA BANDIKERI,
IST CROSS, K.R. MOHALLA,
MYSORE - 570 024.
                                                 ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUNDARAM.K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
       HOME DEPARTMENT,
       VIDHANA SOUDHA,
       BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.     MYSURUMAHANAGARA PALIKE, MYSURU
       REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER
       YADAVAGIRI, MYSORE.
                                               ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NITJYANANDA K.R., AGA)

       THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED NOTICE AT ANNEXURE-C DATED 09.02.2022
AND DIRECT THE R2 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THE
PETITIONER    FOR   RENEWAL       OF   TRADE    LICENSE   IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
                               2

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


                          ORDER

The subject matter of this writ petition, it is submitted

at the Bar, is substantially similar to the one in WP

No.8541/2017 (LB-BMP) between M/s. Atricara Hospitality

Pvt. Ltd., vs. State of Karnataka & others disposed off by a

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 23.07.2018 Paragraphs

10 & 11 in the said judgment read as:

"10. In view of the above, when the petitioner is carrying on its business by obtaining licence from the concerned authority, question of obtaining separate licence for serving hookah to its customers in the smoking area does not arise.

11. In view of the above, writ petitions is allowed. The impugned notice dated 6.2.2017 issued by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 is unsustainable and is hereby quashed. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed not to insist the petitioner to obtain a separate licence for serving hookah to its customers in the smoking area of the schedule property."

2. In the Division Bench decision of this Court in

W.A.Nos.932-933/1974 between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER

Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER &

SECRETARY disposed off on 11.12.1974, it has been held

that like cases should be treated alike and if relief is

granted to a litigant, similar relief cannot be denied to other

similarly circumstanced litigants, subject to all just

exceptions.

In the above circumstances, this writ petition

succeeds; impugned notice is quashed; petitioner is entitled

to run business in question sans license as the law now

obtains; respondent Nos.2 & 3 are restrained from

interfering with the business in question only on the ground

that it is being run without license and not on other

grounds.

Costs made easy.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DS