1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

WRIT PETITION.NO.32600 OF 2015 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN

DR.K.N.SRIKANTEGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,

S/O SRI K.V.NAGEGOWDA @ NAGARAJA GOWDA,

MEDICAL PRACTITIONER,

CITY CO-OP BLDG.,

GANDHI CHOWK,

LASKAR MOHALLA,

MYSURU-560 030.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI PUTHIGE R. RAMESH, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

MYSORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,

BY ITS COMMISSIONER,

DEVARAJA MOHALLA,

MYSURU-570 001.

2.

ZONAL COMMISSIONER,

CITY SERVICE CENTRE AND ZONAL OFFICE-6,

NEW SHESHADRI IYER ROAD,

MANDI MOHALLA,

MYSURU-570 021.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SHRUTHI SURYANARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR

2

SMT. GEETHA DEVI M.P., ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SEEKING CERTAIN

RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Sri Puthige R. Ramesh, learned counsel for petitioner

and Smt. Shruthi Suryanarayan, learned counsel on behalf

of Smt.Geetha Devi M. P., for respondents have appeared

through video conferencing.

2.

Petitioner is a registered medical practitioner

and practicing as a physician at Mysore. It is averred that

Mysore City being the center place of originating conducted

tours, M/S.SRS Travels has established a medical center to

attend to emergency cases for attending its staff and

patients. In this regard, petitioner’s clinic is selected for

attending to the said purpose and is in existence for over

15 years. The petitioner is a Consultant for M/S.SRS

Travels .

3

As things stood thus, on 18.11.2008, the Zonal

Commissioner issued a notice under Section 343 of the

KMC Act. Thereafter, petitioner was constrained to

challenge the action of the respondent - Corporation and

accordingly filed a suit in O.S.No. 655/2009 for declaration

and injunction. The suit was decreed on 07.09.2012.

According to the petitioner , the same has attained finality.

It is further averred that taking advantage of the

liberty given in the judgment and decree, the Corporation

issued one more notice on 20.07.2015 under Section 353

of the KMC Act. Aggrieved by the said notice, petitioner

having left with no other efficacious and alternative

remedy has filed this writ petition.

3.

Learned Counsel for petitioner has urged

several grounds. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of

parties and perused the Annexures with care.

4.

The principal ground on which the Court is

asked to quash the notice is that the exercise of power by

4

the respondents is under a mistaken notion of a non-

existing law.

It is not in dispute in the year 2008, the respondent

-Corporation issued notice under Section 343 of the KMC

Act, alleging that the petitioner has violated the provisions

of Section 343 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act,

1976. The petitioner was constrained to initiate action

against the respondent-Corporation by filing a suit. After

contest, the suit was decreed on 07.09.2012. It is relevant

to note that the trial Court concluded that neither Sections

343 nor 353 of the KMC Act are applicable to the facts and

circumstances of the case.

As things stood thus, in and around July 2015, the

Corporation again issued a notice under Section 353 of the

KMC Act alleging that as per Section 353, it is illegal to

carry a business without obtaining trade license under

Section 353 of the KMC Act.

5

I have carefully perused Sections 343 and 353 of the

Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976.

Section 343 deals with prohibition in respect of

lodging houses and Section 353 deals with purposes for

which places within the limits of the city or within five

kilometers thereof may not be used without licence and

payment of proportionate tax to local body concerned in

the latter case.

It is pivotal to note that schedule X deals with

purpose