( 1 ) IN all these petitions, the petitioners have sought for a direction to the respondent-Corporation to consider the applications for renewal of their licence to carry on business (hereinafter referred to as "the trade licence") and also to quash the endorsement given to each of the petitioners.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that they have been carrying on business either in Restaurants or Pubs in the premises, which are the subject-matter of dispute in these petitions, for the last several years; and the respondents, without any justification, are refusing to renew their trade licences on the ground that the premises in question are situated in a cellar portion of the buildings.

( 3 ) SRI B. K. Sampath Kumar and Sri K. L. Manjunath, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that since the petitioners have been carrying on business in the premises in question for the last several years and the licences were granted to them to carry on business in the premises in question after inspection of the premises by the officers of the Corporation, it is not permissible for the respondents at this stage to refuse to renew the licences on the ground that the petitioners are carrying on their business in the cellar portion of the building/s in question. According to them, the renewal of the trade licence sought for by each of the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case, is automatic. They submitted that insofar as the grant of trade licence is concerned, the rights of the parties are governed by the Bye-laws framed for the purpose of regulating the carrying of business in hotels, lodging-houses, boarding-houses, choultries, rest-houses, restaurants, eating-houses etc. , (hereafter referred to as "the Boarding Houses and Restaurant Bye-laws") and, therefore, it is not permissible for the respondents to rely upon Bye-law 21 of the Building Bye-laws (hereinafter referred to as "the building Bye-laws"), which came into force in the year 1984, governing grant of building licence for construction of a building to deny the licences sought for by the petitioners. They further submitted that at any event of the matter, the Building Bye-laws of the year 1984 cannot be made retrospectively applicable in respect of the premises in which some of the petitioners have been carrying on business prior to the date of the coming into force of the said Bye-laws. It is their further submission that the petitioners having made huge investments for the purpose of their business, they had legitimate expectation that the trade licences earlier issued to them, would be renewed every year without there being any objection. In support of this plea of legitimate expectation, Sri Sampath Kumar relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M. P. Oil Extraction and Another v State of Madhya Pradesh and Others and drew my attention to paragraphs 29 and 31 of the judgment and also another decision of the Supreme court in the case of Navjyoti Co-operative Group Housing Society v Union of India, and drew my attention to paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgment. It is also his further submission that even assuming that the respondents, at the stage of the renewal of the licence, would have the power to decide the question as to whether the licence should be renewed or not, such decision has to be taken only after receipt and consideration of each of the applications of the existing licensees; and the right of the existing licensees to carry on business cannot be denied by means of Circular dated 8th of March, 1999, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-E to Writ Petition no. 10287 of 1998.

( 4 ) HOWEVER, Sri Ashok Harnahalli, Sri K. N. Puttegowda, Sri Muralidhar, Sri Prashanth, Sri gunashekhar, Sri E. G. Rajashekhar and Sri Muniyappa, learned Counsels appearing for the corporation, strongly countered the submissions of the learned Counsel for petitioners. It is their submission that Bye-law 21 of the Building B

Click Here to Read the rest of this document