The court upheld the authority of municipal notices based on master plans, emphasizing compliance with established regulations and the need for proper responses to legal notices before challenging them.

ORDER :

R.NATARAJ, J.

IN WP NO.14469 OF 2025:

The petitioner has challenged the notice bearing No. AY(C.V.R)/P.R/375/2022-23 dated 28.12.2022 vide Annexure-'F' issued by respondent No.3 by which the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why action should not be initiated to close down the commercial activities.

2. The petitioner claims that he is running commercial activity in premises bearing No. 149, 2^nd Main, 3^rd Stage, New Thippasandra, Bangalore, which earlier lay within the limits of City Municipal Council and thereafter was included in the limits of Municipal Corporation in the year 2002-2003. The petitioner had obtained a trade license from the Municipal Corporation in the year 2019-2020 and onwards which is valid upto 31.03.2030. Petitioner contends that the license is issued in accordance with the byelaws of Municipal Corporation and business is being run by the petitioner for several years.

3. He further claims that the Municipal Corporation has now issued the notice dated 28.12.2022 calling upon the petitioner to close down the shop immediately stating that business run by the petitioner is in contravention of a Notification dated 20.03.2015 issued by Department of Urban Development. It is claimed in the notice that the shop where the petitioner was conducting is within Ring No.2 of revised master plan 2015 and the width of the road in less than 40 feet and as per revised master plan 2015, no commercial activity is permissible in a premises that is alongside a road which is less than 40 feet wide.

4. The petitioner contends that the notice is issued pursuant to order passed in WP.No.3676/2008 to which, he was not a party. He claims that his is doing business in the premises even before the area came within the limits of BBMP and therefore, the revised master plan,2015 cannot be applied to him. The petitioner is therefore, before this Court, challenging the notice issued by respondent No.3.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above submissions and contended that the impugned notice is liable to be quashed.

6. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the notice is issued pursuant to a direction issued by this Court in WP No.3676/2008 and therefore the same cannot be assailed by the petitioner. He contends that respondent No.3 has issued several such notices to various persons who are doing commercial activity in residential areas or in premises that abut a road which is less than 40 feet wide.

7. It appears that respondent No.3 had issued notice in question following the direction issued by this Court in WP No.3676/2008. If the petitioner has any justification, he was bound to reply to the said notice, he could not have rushed to this Court challenging the said notice issued by respondent No.3. In that view of the matter, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner in this Writ Petition and the notice issued by respondent cannot be quashed. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to reply to the notice within a period of two weeks. Respondent No.3, thereafter shall proceed in accordance with law. Until then, respondent No.3 shall not take any precipitative action.

IN WP NO.14372 OF 2025:

The petitioner has challenged the notice bearing No. AY(C.V.R)/P.R/31/2023-24 dated 01.09.2023 vide Annexure-'L' issued by respondent No.3 by which the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the action should not be initiated to close down the commercial activities.

2. The petitioner claims that he is running the commercial activity in premises bearing No. 234/A, 1^st Main, 5^th Cross, HAL 3^rd Stage, Bangalore, which earlier lay within the limits of City Municipal Council and thereafter was included in the limits of Municipal Corporation in the year 2002-2003. The petitioner had obtained trade