- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20037 WP No. 9815 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 9815 OF 2019 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: MRS. JENEVIVE RODRIGUES W/O LATE JERALD RODRIGUES AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS POMPEI HOUSE, MALADY VILLAGE POST MADANTHYAR-574224. BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA .K, ADVOCATE) AND: THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MADANTHYAR PANCHAYATH MADANTHYAR-574224. BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO ACT ON THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.11.2016 ANNEXURE-D AND 05.02.2019 ANNEXURE-F AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20037 WP No. 9815 of 2019 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking a mandamus against the respondent to consider the petitioner's representations dated 15.11.2016 and 05.02.2019 as per Annexures-D and F respectively and by considering the representations take action to remove all vehicles parking in front of the commercial building owned by the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent/Gram Panchayat. 3. On a meticulous examination of the material placed on record, it is manifest that the petitioner's commercial property is situated abutting the State Highway, and it is not in dispute that the structure in question is a commercial building housing various business establishments. The petitioner, being the lawful owner and occupant of the said commercial premises, is engaged in running legitimate business activities and facilitating - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20037 WP No. 9815 of 2019 such activities for other tenants operating within the building. The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the rampant and unauthorized parking of auto-rickshaws directly in front of the commercial complex, which has resulted in serious obstruction to ingress and egress of customers and clients visiting the petitioner's business premises. The obstruction has adversely affected the petitioner’s ability to carry on business in a peaceful and effective manner, thereby infringing the petitioner's fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, which assures to every citizen the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. 4. It is pertinent to note that the right to trade or carry on business is not an empty formality but an enforceable fundamental right, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sodan Singh vs. New Delhi - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20037 WP No. 9815 of 2019 Municipal Committee1, wherein it was held that any unreasonable restriction on access to business premises, including denial of space or obstruction, constitutes an infringement of the right under Article 19(1)(g). Similarly, in Bhanwar Lal vs. Rajasthan Board for Prevention and Control of Pollution2, it was reiterated that obstruction to lawful business due to inaction of statutory authorities is amenable to judicial review. 5. The petitioner, therefore, was constrained to submit detailed representations to the respondent- Panchayat Development Officer (PDO), Madanthyar Panchayat, on earlier occasions, first in 2016 and again in 2019, specifically requesting the authorities to regulate and prevent unauthorized parking of auto-rickshaws in front of the commercial complex. Despite the lapse of considerable time and repeated requests, the records clearly demonstrate a palpable inaction and indifference on 1 (1989) 4 SCC 155 2 AIR 1990 Raj 50 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20037 WP No. 9815 of 2019 the part of the PDO, who has failed to take any meaningful steps to redress the legitimate grievances of the petitioner. The inaction on the part of the statutory authority, despite being put on notice through formal representations, not only reflects administrative apathy but also tantamounts to a continuing violation of the petitioner's constitutional and legal rights. 6. In the course of the proceedings, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-Panchayat has submitted that the representations of the petitioner will now be duly considered and that appropriate action will be initiated in accordance with law, provided a reasonable time is granted. This assurance, albeit belated, is recorded. However, it is imperative to emphasize that the right to carry on trade or business cannot be rendered illusory by bureaucratic inaction or administrative indifference, especially when the grievance pertains to physical obstruction affecting business operations. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20037 WP No. 9815 of 2019 7. Recording his assurance, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is hereby allowed; (ii) The respondent–Gram Panchayat is directed to consider the petitioner’s representations dated 15.11.2016 and 05.02.2019, produced at Annexures-D and F respectively, and to take appropriate action for identifying and allotting a designated area for parking of autorickshaws; (iii) The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44