IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 47877 OF 2018 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

M/S. PAVITHRA RICE TRADERS A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN AND HAVING ITS BUSINESS PREMISES AT NO.1848, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, H.A.L. III STAGE, NEW THIPPASANDRA, NEAR VEGETABLE MARKET, BENGALURU - 560 075.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.

Digitally signed by SUMA 2. THE COMMISSIONER Location: BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HIGH N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.

COURT OF KARNATAKA

3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (EAST)

BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU - 560 002.

4. THE HEALTH OFFICER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE C.V.RAMAN NAGAR ZONE, ULSOOR LAKE, BENGALURU-560032.

5. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK, BANGALORE.

REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 27.11.2018 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4;

SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO.AAY/CVR/PR/68/2018-19 DATED 01.10.2018, ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 AS PER ANNEXURE-K.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has challenged a notice bearing No.

D.ªÉÊ/¹.«.Dgï/¦.Dgï/68/2018-2019 issued by the respondent No.4 by which it was called upon to close down the commercial activity undertaken on the ground that it was lying within a residential area.

2. The petitioner claims that the Site bearing No.1848, ground floor, 6^th B Cross, 2^nd Main, HAL III Stage, New Thippasandra, Bengaluru-560 075 (henceforth referred to as 'the property' / 'the premises') was purchased by the proprietrix of the petitioner at a public auction conducted by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The proprietrix of the petitioner was granted a licence by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) for the purpose of vending groceries and regulated items. The petitioner claims that it was registered under the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 and also registered with the Department of Labour. It was also registered as a Dealer under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. It contends that it was carrying on vending of groceries and was a neighbourhood utility shop. However, the respondent No.4 issued a notice dated 05.06.2018 stating that the petitioner is carrying on commercial activity in violation of the Zoning Regulations and that the petitioner failed to reply to the earlier notice. The proprietrix of the petitioner claims that she replied to the said notice contending that she was carrying on the commercial activity from the year 2006 and she was running the grocery shop in a part of the premises belonging to her. She contends that the respondent No.4 without conducting any enquiry and without hearing the objections raised, issued another notice dated 01.10.2018 to the petitioner alleging that it was conducting commercial activity in a residential zone and thereby, there was violation of the Zoning Regulations and Guidelines of the Government dated 20.03.2015 as also the violation of the order passed by this Court in W.P No.3676/2008. The petitioner was therefore called upon to close down the commercial activity immediately failing which the respondent No.4 would take necessary action to close it down. The petitioner claims that it replied to the respondent No.4 on 09.10.2018 as well as respondent No.3 on 10.10.2018 stating that the commercial activity is run from a small portion of the house from the year 2006 and did not violate any provision of law. The petitioner apprehending that the respondents may take coerci