ORDER :

R. DEVDAS J.,

The petitioner is aggrieved by a trade licence issued by the respondent-BBMP in favour of respondent No.7 for carrying on activity of ‘Auto Car Spa’ as found at Annexures ‘F’, ‘F1’ and ‘G’.

2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent No.7 has established a car washing centre and ceramic spray centre in the property which is situated behind the residence of the petitioner. Respondent No.7 has obtained the trade licence for carrying on the activity in properties bearing site Nos.1009 and 1010, situated on 80 ft Road, A-Sector, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore. It is submitted that the activity which is permitted by the BBMP and which is carried on by respondent No.7 is in total contravention of the Zonal Regulations, building bye-laws and is a cause for concern, since it is damaging the environment around the locality and is polluting the lake which is situated adjacent to the property in question.

3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that after the seventh respondent entered appearance and filed statement of objections to the writ petition, he has produced copy of a plan sanctioned by the Karnataka Housing Board in the year 2000-01 in respect of site bearing No.1009 for putting up a residential building on a portion of the property, while a major portion in the frontage is kept open. It is submitted that from the year 2016, the seventh respondent has put up a structure encompassing the front portion of the property bearing site No.1009 and the entire property bearing site No.1010 and has put up a structure without leaving any set backs. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent-Health Officer of BBMP has not cared to visit the property before issuing the trade licence in favour of the seventh respondent.

4. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the respondent-BBMP is the authority which is now vested with the power of sanctioning the plan with respect to all the properties falling within Yelahanka New Town. It is submitted that the respondent-BBMP authorities have not verified as to whether sanction plan was obtained by the seventh respondent and whether the structure put up on the property in question are in consonance with the sanction plan and whether the structure complies with the requirement of the building bye-laws. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel has taken this Court through the relevant provisions i.e., Section 295(5) of The Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) which provides that only after obtaining a sanction from the competent authority could any person venture to put up any structure on the property falling within the jurisdiction of BBMP. It is submitted that Section 299 of the Act, requires that every person who intends to put up any structure is required to make an application in writing seeking approval of the plan. Since it was the contention of respondent No.7 that he has not put up any permanent structure, learned Senior Counsel points out to Section 2(1-A) of the Act which defines ‘Building’. It is submitted that a plain reading of the definition of the words ‘building’ as provided in the Act, shows that even a temporary structure could not be erected without approval or sanction at the hands of the Commissioner of BBMP.

5. The learned Senior Counsel has taken this Court through the Zonal Regulations which govern the development in the City of Bengaluru. It is submitted that Section 14 of the Karnataka Town and Coutnry Planning Act, 1961 provides that when once a Master Plan is published under sub-section (1) of Section 10, every land use, every change in land use and every development in the area covered by the plan subject to Section 14-A shall conform to the provisions of the Act, Master Plan and the report as finally approved by the State Government. It is submitted that the Zonal Regulations are part of the Master Plan. Taking this Court through