PANCHARATHNA ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri. Pawan Kumar, learned counsel who is present in the Court is directed to take notice for both the respondents.

(2.) Sri.Aruna Shyam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that respondent No.2-Health Officer, Mahadevapura Zone, BBMP, has passed the impugned order dtd. 30/5/2023 at Annexure-J, directing immediate closure and locking up of the premises bearing No.72/1, BBMP Khata No.1068/1177/72/1, situated at Bellanduru Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. Learned Senior Counsel submits that although an application for renewal of a trade licence was filed on 6/1/2023 and the same is pending consideration before the competent authority, the impugned order has been passed and therefore, it is illegal. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the impugned order has been accentuated at the instance of the owner of the building and the property, who has raised a dispute and has filed a civil miscellaneous petition before this Court seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. At the instance of the owner of the building, respondent No.2 could not have passed the impugned order. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the order is not a speaking order and no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners.

(3.) Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that the petitioners have not impleaded the owner of the property, although an allegation is sought to be made against the owner of the property. Be that as it may, respondent No.2-Health Officer could not have passed the impugned order before considering the application for renewal filed by the petitioners. The application was admittedly filed on 6/1/2023 and no orders have been passed by respondent No.2 on the application seeking renewal of the trade licence. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained.