SIRAJ BAIG Vs. BANGALORE CITY CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an order of reference made by the learned Single Judge on 25-3-2000 the following two questions have been framed for an answer by the Division Bench:

(2.) The Petitioners herein have filed the writ petition seeking quashing of resolution bearing No. 12/445, dated 19-7-1999 passed by the first Respondent produced as Annexure-D and consequential notices dated 21-9-1999 produced as Annexures-D1 to D4. The Petitioners had made an application for obtaining a licence to run their business of selling beef from first Respondent-Corporation. The said applications were rejected by the second Respondent. Against the said order of rejection, the Petitioners had preferred an appeal before the Standing Committee for Public Health, Education and Social Justice which rejected their appeal on 23-4-1998. Thereafter, the Petitioners submitted a representation to the Standing Committee enclosing an endorsement issued by the Slum Clearance Board to the effect that the Petitioners were residing in huts and conducting their business as per the records. The Standing Committee decided to reconsider the matter by conducting a spot inspection and by its resolution dated 4-11-1998 directed issuance of licence in favour of the Petitioners for selling beef in their respective shops as per Annexure-B. When the matter stood thus, it appears that one of the Corporators wrote a letter to the Commissioner requesting the Corporation not to issue a licence and the said letter was placed before the Council by the Commissioner along with his note dated 12-1-1999 requesting the Council to take a decision on the said letter. A resolution was passed by the Council in Subject No. 12/445 to the effect that the licence should not be granted to the Petitioners, vide Annexure-C which is challenged herein. Consequently, notice was issued to the Petitioners calling upon them to close down their shops, failing which legal action would be taken. The said notices are at Annexures-Dl to D4. The Petitioners have also challenged Annexures-C and D1 to D4 in the writ petition.

(3.) After service of notice in the writ petition, the Respondents filed their statement of objection contending that after the Standing Committee had passed an order in favour of the Petitioners one of the Corporators had written a letter to the Commissioner requesting the Corporation not to issue licence and the said letter was placed before the Corporation Councillors along with his notice dated 12-1-1999 to take a decision and the letter was placed before the Corporation-Council and the resolution was passed by the Council in subject No. 12/4445 to the effect that the licence should not be issued to the Petitioners.