The petitioner submitted an application with Respondent

No.1 for grant of Trade License for the purpose of starting a

Dosa Canteen. Respondent No.1 after conducting spot

inspection rejected the application of the petitioner by issuing

the impugned endorsements, at Annexures-A, B and C for the

following reasons: (i) there is no provision for discharge of

sewage water; (ii) the premises in which the petitioner

intends to carry on Dosa Canteen measures 127 sq.ft. and the

same is insufficient to carry on the Dosa Canteen; (iii) there

are no proper facilities provided by the petitioner to run the

Dosa Canteen.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner has provided the facilities for discharge of sewage

3

water, which is evident from the representation submitted to

the first respondent at Annexure-L dated 11.11.2021. He

further submits that the reasons assigned for rejecting the

application submitted by the petitioner is contrary to the

provisions contained in the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964

(for short, KMA Act). He further submits that Respondent

No.1 has granted Trade Licenses in respect of the similarly

situated persons. Hence, the impugned endorsement issued

by Respondent No.1 is arbitrary and discriminatory.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for

Respondent No.1 submits that against the endorsement

issued by Respondent No.1, an efficacious and alternative

remedy of appeal is provided under Section 343 of the KMA

Act. Hence, the present petition filed without exhausting the

alternative remedy of appeal is not maintainable and is liable

to be dismissed. He further submits that the petitioner has

not provided basic facilities and as such the premises in which

the petitioner intends to carry on Dosa Canteen is not suitable

4

for carrying on the trade and Respondent No.1 has rightly

rejected the application submitted by the petitioner and

sought for dismissal of the petition.

I have examined the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties.

5.

Section 256 of the KMA Act prescribes that no

person shall use or permit to be used any premises for

any of the purposes without or otherwise than in conformity

with the terms of a license granted by the Municipal

Commissioner. Part I of Schedule XIII of the KMC Act

specifies that Trade License may be granted for the purposes

for which premises may not be used without a license.

Section 256 read with Part I of Schedule XIII of the KMC Act

does not specify that a person is entitled for grant of Trade

License only if a trader possess minimum extent of premises

for carrying on the business of eating house or catering

establishment. In the present case, the first respondent

rejected the application stating the premises in which the

5

petitioner intends to carry on the dosa canteen measures only

127 sq.ft.

6.

The petitioner has provided facility for discharge of

sewage water, which is evident from the representation

submitted by the petitioner at Annexure-C dated 11.11.2021

and as such, the petitioner has satisfied the requirement of

providing facilities for discharge of sewage water by digging a

pit in his property. Hence, the impugned endorsement issued

by Respondent No.1 rejecting the application on the ground

that the petitioner has not provided facility for discharge of

sewage water is not sustainable in law.

7.

The

contention

of

the

learned

counsel

for

respondent No.1 that the petitioner is not entitled for the

trade licence as the impugned endorsement was issued after

receiving objections from public is not acceptable. Though

inviting objections is not specified under Section 256 of the

Act, it is a clear blatant violation of principles of natural

justice and the alternative remedy available under Section

6

343 of the Act is not a bar on the petitioner to file this writ

petition as the said violation false under one of the exceptions

to the rule of alternate remedy and does not divest the power

of High Co