1. The notice dated August 31, 1995, (Annexure - C), and the Memo / Order dated September 12, 1995, (Annexure - H), issued by the third respondent in No. Ho. PR. 86/95-96 cancelling the licence granted to the first petitioner to run restaurant, are sought to be quashed by the petitioners in this petition. They have further sought for a writ to strike down S.443 (4) and 444(2) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') as being ultra wires and unconstitutional.

2. The first petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act having its principal place of business at New Delhi. The second petitioner is the Director - Finance of the first petitioner - company having authority to sue and to be sued in the name of the company. The petitioners state that the first petitioner is part of an international chain of restaurants which is carrying on business at No. 4, Brigade Road Bangalore, from June 1, 1995 in pursuance of the licence issued by the second respondent as per Annexure - A. The petitioners state that the principal company also carry on business in different parts of the world in the name and style 'KFC' or 'KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN'. They serve both vegetarian and non - vegetarian food. It is further stated that each one of the restaurants of KFC International, including the first petitioner, serve fried chicken which is manufactured as per specifications and recipe proprietory to KFC International. They also state that they strictly and vigilantly comply with all the applicable health standards and regulations as prescribed by, and required under, the local laws of India.

3. That, on August 25, 1995, at about 10-45 AM and again at 11-55 AM, the third respondent and the officers designated to collect samples under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 (for short "the PFA Act'), went to the restaurant of the petitioners and took certain samples of raw - materials and cooked food under the provisions of PFA Act and issued Form VI as required under the Rules. It is stated by the petitioners that the third respondent and his officers have also visited the restaurant on some other day and collected some other materials with which we are not concerned in this petition.

4. The fried chicken appeared to have been sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and report. The Public Analyst is stated to have submitted his report dated August 29, 1995 on August 30, 1995 to the third respondent. That, in view of the report of the Public Analyst, the third respondent issued a notice dated August 31, 1995 to the petitioners, that the fried and raw chicken samples were collected from the restaurant of the first petitioner for analysis on August 25, 1995 and on analysis fried chicken was found to be adulterated, misbranded and unfit for human consumption due to use of excess of Monosodium Glutamate (for short 'MSG') as per PFA Act 1954 and R.1955, and called upon the petitioners to explain within three days as to why their licence should not be cancelled for the said offence. The petitioners by their letter dated September 1,1995 informed the third respondent that they have received the notice dated August 31, 1995 with shock and they were neither aware of the report of the Public Analyst nor do they have any report of the Public Analyst. The petitioners have further requested the third respondent not to proceed further in the matter and to grant them adequate opportunity and time to respond to the said notice. The petitioners have also sought for a personal hearing in the matter. Again by letter dated September 4, 1995 addressed to the Commissioner, the second respondent herein, the petitioners have disputed the allegations made in the notice dated August 31, 1995 and has further stated that their fried chicken produce has insignificant level of MSG in fact less than 1%. Thereafter the third respondent issued a memo dated September 12, 1995, as per Annexure - H, cancelling the licence gr