LAWS(KAR)-2018-1-12

AA HOSPITALITY LLP. Vs. BRUHAT BENGALURU

Decided On January 11, 2018
Aa Hospitality Llp. Appellant
V/S
Bruhat Bengaluru Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, AA Hospitality LLP., (The Open Box) restaurant is aggrieved by the impugned notice issued by the respondent-Joint Commissioner (East), Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), vide Date of order :11.01.2018 in WP No.763/2018 C/W WP No.1780/2018 AA Hospitality LLP., (The Open Box) vs. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and another. Annexure-A, dated 26.12.2017, calling upon the petitioner-restaurant to close the said pub/public bar or the Restaurant on the roof top of the Building, which is a commercial building, on the ground that a lot of complaints have been received from the public/residents of nearby area due to high noise pollution and other public nuisance caused by the business activities of the petitioner-restaurant. The said Joint Commissioner has called upon the petitioner-restaurant to close down the said establishment and if such an action is not taken, the needful action will be taken against the petitioner- restaurant under the provisions of the KMC Act, 1976.

(2.) Mr. Ajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-restaurant has vehemently submitted that the petitioner-restaurant holds due and proper Date of order :11.01.2018 in WP No.763/2018 C/W WP No.1780/2018 AA Hospitality LLP., (The Open Box) vs. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and another.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-restaurant has relied upon certain judgments of this Court and one of them being in the case in S.N. Sinha vs. State of Karnataka and others decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 14.12.2011 reported in 2012 (2) Kar.L.J. 701, to support the contention that a Date of order :11.01.2018 in WP No.763/2018 C/W WP No.1780/2018 AA Hospitality LLP., (The Open Box) vs. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and another. notice in its vague form, as it has been given in the present case vide Annexure-A, dated 26.12.2017, is no notice in the eye of law and, therefore, the petitioner-restaurant cannot be called upon either to show-cause before the respondent authority or to close down its business activities without being heard.