R GOPAL Vs. BANGALORE CITY CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner made an application to the Commissioner of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore-1st respondent herein for grant of a licence in accordance with the requirement of Sec. 343 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to run a non-vegetarian restaurant (in 42 Division) on Shivagangamutt Road at premises No. 261/1, 1st Cross, Chamarajpet IIIrd Main Road. That application came to be rejected on the ground that consent letter from the immediate neighbours had not been produced. That order was passed on 15-1-1986. The application was made on 27-12-1985. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner to the Standing Committee-Public Health, of the Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Standing Committee). That Standing Committee at its meeting held on 17-4-1986 allowed the appeal taking into consideration that the objector was living at a considerable distance from the place where the non-vegetarian restaurant was sought to be run and that subject to certain conditions, the place was suitable to start and run a non-vegetarian restaurant. Soon thereafter, the matter was required to be placed before the Corporation of the City of Bangalore at the request of the Chairman, Standing Committee Taxation. The request was dated 29-4-1986 which means very soon after the other Standing Committee had allowed the appeal. When that matter was placed before the Corporation at its meeting held on 29-7-1986 one Shri B. V. Puttegowda moved a resolution to the effect that the licence applied for by Shri R. Gopal should not be granted: it was seconded by one Shri M. vijaya kumar and the Mayor put the resolution to vote and it was unanimously adopted and passed.

(2.) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court under Arts. 226 and 277 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certloreri from this Court quashing the endorsement at Annexure-G to the petition by which he has been informed that the Corporation at its meeting had decided not to grant the licence inter alia contending that the resolution of the Corporation is without jurisdiction and without assigning any reason it has over-ruled the statutory Standing Committee's order. It is also contended, the petitioner ought to have been heard as he had acquired a right by virtue of the appeal being allowed by the Standing Committee.

(3.) I do not think any of the contentions are sustainable and the writ issued as prayed for. The fact are not themselves in dispute. A resident of the area had objected to the grant having learnt that such an application had been made. It was thereafter that the endorsement was issued rejecting the application for licence to run the non-vegetarian restaurant on the ground, immediate neighbours consent hed not been obtained. The appeal was duly considered by the Standing Committee being an order made by the Commissioner in accordance with the provisions contained in Sec.343 of the Act. Doubtful whether an appeal Lies. The Standing Committee favoured the grant Of licence after holding that a non-vegetarian restaurant licensed in the premises in question would not offend the neighbours and to ensure the same certain conditions may be imposed. It also noticed that the objector was living quite some distance away from the proposed place where the restaurant was intended to be run and therefore could not be considered to be a person affected. The appeal to the Standing Committee was preferred under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 444 of the Act. In the event of modification or reversal of an order of the Commissjoner by the Standing Committee, the Commissioner has option under sub-sec. (2) of Sec.444 of the Act to refere the matter to the Corporation. But once the matter is so referred and the Corporation takes a decision, the decisions of the Corporation shall be final as provided in sub- sec. (3) of Sec. 444 of the Act.