- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9705 WP No. 6325 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 6325 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. M/S AL ZAITOON RESTAURANT AND GRILLS NO.18/1, GROUND FLOOR WELLINGTON STREET RICHMOND TOWN BANGLAORE - 560 025 REPERSENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI ABOOBACKER SIDDIKE … PETITIONER (BY SRI V. LAKSHMINARAYANA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI CHANDPASHA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA DR AMBEKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9705 WP No. 6325 of 2025 3. THE MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH BRUAHT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE SHANTINAGAR SUB-DIVISION BANGALORE - 560 025 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R1; SRI PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DTD. 18.02.2025 BEARING NO.AA.Y/SHA.N/P.R/2126/ 2024-2025 PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER Petitioner has sought for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notice at Annexure-A. 2. In terms of the notice at Annexure-A, the respondent - BBMP states that the petitioner is running business establishment in residential zone. It is further submitted that in light of the order passed in W.P.No. 3676/2008, the business activity of the petitioner is impermissible and accordingly, has called upon the petitioner to stop the activity, failing which steps would be taken to seal the premises. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9705 WP No. 6325 of 2025 3. Sri. V. Lakshminarayana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the notice is in a standard format and the grounds made out in the notice require further clarity. It is further submitted that the notice is followed by the act of sealing the establishment which has been resorted to without hearing the petitioner. 4. Sri. Pawan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent - BBMP submits that notice was refused and accordingly, it was affixed on the building. It is further submitted that the activity is impermissible in a residential zone. Admittedly, the premises has been sealed pursuant to the notice at Annexure-A. 5. Taking note of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the establishment has been running for about 9 years, it would be appropriate that an opportunity of hearing be given before any decision is taken. If business establishment is being run for about 9 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9705 WP No. 6325 of 2025 years, the hurried manner of sealing the premises requires a re-look at the end of the respondent - BBMP. 6. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (a) BBMP is reserved liberty to issue an additional notice in light of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner that notice is in a standard formant and is vague. (b) Petitioner to be present before the 3rd respondent on 17.03.2025. (c) Petitioner is at liberty to make out reply to the notice at Annexure-A. In the event fresh notice is issued, the petitioner is at liberty to make out further reply to the same within a time period of 10 days. After reply is furnished, petitioner may be heard and orders be passed in accordance with law. (d) In light of the order passed today while noticing that the act of sealing the premises is disproportionate action without hearing the petitioner, the respondent - BBMP to de-seal the premises forthwith. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9705 WP No. 6325 of 2025 7. Accordingly, petition is disposed off. All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP