CHITRAKALA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition raises a rudimentary principle of law, he who decides, must hear , by calling in question an order dated 16.03.2019, bearing No.PSR(4)/11664/2018- 19, passed by the Commissioner of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter referred to as the BBMP for short), declining to accept the claim of the petitioner and directing that the activity of the petitioner performed in her residential premises cannot be allowed to be continued.

(2.) Heard Sri Sunil S. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Nithyananda K.R., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Sri Amit Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the second and third respondents.

(3.) The petitioner on an identical notice being issued to her on 30.08.2018, had filed writ petition No.40663/2018, challenging the said notice on the grounds that were urged therein. This Court by an order dated 11.02.2019, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the BBMP to determine whether the activity conducted by the petitioner in her premises was permissible in terms of the notification dated 20.03.2015. The order of this Court reads as follows: