The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authorities cannot retrospectively apply zoning regulations to completed constructions.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The petitioner has challenged the notice dtd. 20/7/2015 issued by the respondent No.2 calling upon it to show cause as to why the commercial activity undertaken by it in a residential area should not be closed. The petitioner has also challenged the notice dtd. 16/8/2016 to show cause within three days as to why the licence granted to the petitioner to run commercial activity in the premises in question should not be cancelled. He has also challenged a notice dtd. 16/1/2017 wherein it was stated that the petitioner was conducting commercial activity in a residential zone and that the petitioner had violated the Zoning Regulations notified by the State Government on 20/3/2015 as per the Order passed by this Court in W.P. No.3676/2008. The petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the commercial activity undertaken by it should not be closed.

2. The petitioner claims that it had taken on lease the property bearing No.118, 3rd / 8th Main Road, Sarakki Dollar Layout, IV Phase, J.P. Nagar, Bengaluru-560 078 (henceforth referred to as 'the petition schedule property') from its owners to run a super market. It claimed that the schedule property lay at the corner of the said 3rd and 8th main roads. The petitioner claimed that the 3rd and 8th Main Road were more than 18 m wide and the property lay within a Residential (Mixed) Zone in the Revised Master Plan 2015 for Bangalore. The petitioner claimed that since the plot size was more than 240 sq.m. and the road width was more than 18 m, the ancillary uses, namely, C3, I-2, U4 and T2 were permitted. The petitioner claimed that the owners of the petition schedule property hence submitted a plan for approval to construct a building for retail use. The petitioner further contended that retail shops and hardware shops were permitted activity in a residential zone if the plot size was more than 240 sq.m. and the road width was more than 18 m. The petitioner contends that there were several other commercial establishments in the area which were left untouched. After the petitioner took the premises on lease on 16/12/2009, it started operating a super market after obtaining a trade licence from the respondent No.2 and was registered under the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961. When things stood thus, on 4/10/2012, certain unruly elements filed a public interest litigation in W.P.No.40865/2012 before this Court where they claimed that the petition schedule property should not be used for the purpose of a super market as the building was constructed in violation of the sanctioned plan and a confirmation order dtd. 3/9/2011 was passed under Sec. 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short, 'the Act of 1976') to demolish the building. The said writ petition was disposed off on 23/8/2013 reserving liberty to the owners of the petition schedule property to approach the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') following which, the owners have filed an Appeal No.737/2013 where the Tribunal has granted an order of status quo on 23/8/2013. The petitioner alleged that based on the complaint of some busybodies, the respondent No.2 issued a notice dtd. 20/7/2015 to Mr.A.P. Ahmad Rafi, partner of the petitioner, stating that the State Government had issued a notification dtd. 11/12/2014 which prohibited commercial activity in residential areas and that the activity undertaken by the petitioner was not permitted under the notification dtd. 11/12/2014. The petitioner alleged that though it issued a reply on 27/7/2015 stating that as per the Revised Master Plan 2015, it was permitted to use the petition schedule property for commercial activity if the plot size was more than 240 sq. m. and the road width was more than 18 m, the respondent No.2 without considering the same, was persisting to close down the business. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. During the pendency of this writ petition, further notices