T. MANJUNATH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel Sri.Sudeep V.C . for petitioner; learned counsel Sri.B.V.Muralidhar for respondent Nos.2 and 3 as well as Sri.K.R.Nityananda, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1. Perused the writ petition papers.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure-A/notice dtd. 5/2/2022 wherein the petitioner is directed to close down the garage. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Annexure-A/ notice dtd. 5/2/2022 is in the nature of order and while arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner is running a garage in the premises in question and also while directing the petitioner to close down the garage, no notice was issued to the petitioner nor an opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. Learned counsel would submit that if the respondents-authorities issue notice, the petitioner would submit his reply and would satisfy the respondents that he is not running garage as alleged.

(3.) Learned counsel Sri.B.V.Muralidhar for respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that the petitioner is running a garage in a residential building without obtaining trade license as required under Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short "BBMP Act"). Learned counsel would point out to Annexures-D and D1/photographs to substantiate the contention of respondents that petitioner is running a garage in the premises in question. Learned counsel Sri.Muralidhar submits that for running a garage, a person is required to obtain trade license under Sec. 314 of BBMP Act. Further, he also submits that in a residential area, no one is permitted to use the premises for commercial purpose including running of a garage.