R G PRASAD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner challenges the endorsement dated 11-3-96 issued by the third respondent rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of trade licence to run a printing press in No. 68, 29th 'a' cross, geetha colony, iv block, jayanagar, Bangalore, vide annexure-a.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, premises No. 68 situate at no. 29th 'a' cross, geetha colony, iv block, jayanagar is the joint family property. Respondent 4 has been impleaded as additional respondent in the case. Further, it is also the case of the petitioner that he had filed a suit for partition and possession of his share in o. s. No. 5177 of 1989 before the city civil judge, Bangalore. He is said to have filed another suit in o. s. No. 2716 of 1996 for injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the running of the printing press which has been installed in premises No. 68, jayanagar, Bangalore. Respondent 4 claims to be the owner of premises No. 68 by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 9-8-1989 executed by b. p. rama rao who is said to be the father of the petitioner. The khata of the property stands in the name of the first respondent and the tax paid receipts also show the name of the 4th respondent.

(3.) SRI. Jayakar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended before me that the second respondent has no power or authority in law to insist on production of documents mentioned in the endorsement Annexure-A and in this context he invited my attention to bye-law no, 41 of the corporation of city of Bangalore. It lays down certain conditions for grant of licence for the installation or running of printing machinery, if any. The form of application is also mentioned in the bye-law. Bye-law No. 2 (b) provides for an appeal to the standing committee (cell ). No doubt, bye-law No. 41 or the form of application do not contain the production of any document for purpose of grant of licence. The contention of Sri jayakar is that since bye-law No. 41 does not contain the production of documents mentioned in Annexure-A to the writ petition, the second respondent ought not to have insisted on production of those documents.