J U D G M E N T

The appellant has challenged an interim order dated

19.12.2023 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.16721/2023 by which, the appellant was restrained from carrying on any commercial activity in the premises belonging to it including battery charging and swapping.

2. The appellant claims that he had entered into a lease agreement with Yulu Energy Private Limited for the purpose of establishment of a battery swapping station to charge batteries to be used exclusively in electric vehicles of Yulu Energy Private Limited. The appellant contends that the unit was installed after obtaining permission from the concerned electric supply company and in line with the guidelines prescribed by the Government of India. The respondent No.1 who is a relative, with whom her family had locked horns over a civil dispute, submitted a representation to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 requesting them to take action against the installation of the battery swapping station, as allowing such business would mean unauthorised persons entering the premises at odd hours and making loud noise and causing public nuisance. He also alleged that the swapping station was installed without obtaining necessary clearance, license from the Municipal Corporation and that there is a possible health hazard to the citizens in the locality.

3. When the writ petition was listed before the learned

Single Judge, it was noticed that the swapping station was installed abutting a road which was 25 feet wide. The learned Single Judge after considering the Zonal Regulations held that no commercial activity can be permitted in a property having road width less than 40 feet and therefore restrained the appellant from carrying on any commercial activity. Being aggrieved by the said order, this writ appeal is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant has already installed the facility which is operational and therefore, the impugned interim order passed by the learned Single Judge would have the effect of closing down the facility itself. He submits that the appellant does not entertain any private persons but is an end to end contract between the appellant and the Yulu Energy Private Limited for the purpose of swapping batteries installed in bikes belonging to Yulu Energy Private Limited all over the city of Bengaluru. He submits that the appellant would undertake not to entertain any private vehicles into the premises for the purpose of swapping batteries or for the purpose of charging electricity to their vehicles. He further submits that there is no requirement of obtaining any license or any trade license from the Municipal Corporation and therefore, the contentions of the respondent

No.1 is ill found.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1

submits that the facility installed by the appellant caters to more than 500 to 600 vehicles, which therefore means consumption of huge amounts of electricity in the premises. He submits that there is a possible threat of detonation of any of the batteries so charged which may cause injury to life of persons in the locality. He further contends that the appellant has failed to obtain the required trade license from the Municipal Corporation besides the installation is made in a property which is abutting the 25 feet road where no commercial activity can be permitted. He therefore contends that on all these grounds, the appellant is not entitled to continue the business in the premises.

6. Learned AGA on the other hand contended that the appellant is bound to obtain permission from the explosive department in view of notification issued by the State Government dated 20.09.1971 in terms of which, any business in explosive substance needs to be licensed by the explosive department. He therefore contends that the appellant not having obtained the explosive license is not entitled to continue swapping station.

7. The contentions urged by the respondent No.1 as well as learned AGA,