- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16186 WP No. 11720 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 11720 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: M/S. C.R. TRADING COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. H.M. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT OLD NO.134, NEW NO.12, 3RD MAIN, 16TH CROSS, G. D. PARK EXENSTION VYALIKAVAL, NEAR CHOWDAIAH MEMORIAL HALL, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUKUMARAN G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002. 2. THE HEALTH OFFICER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, YELAHANKA ZONE, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 094. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KARTHIKEYAN B.S., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16186 WP No. 11720 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS TO THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 FOR PRESENTING ANY ACTION AS PER THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 28.03.2025 OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER VIDE NOTICE NO. BRU.BEOM.MA.PA/YAWA/A.Y(BYA.V)/P.R/401/24-25, DATED 28.03.2025 AND TO QUASH VIDE ANNEXURE F 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 The petitioner has challenged the validity of the notice at Annexure - F dated 28.03.2025. It is contended that the notice issued by the respondent - BBMP is to the effect that the petitioner is required to cease carrying on business immediately and to voluntarily vacate the premises within a period of seven days. 2. It is submitted that though Annexure - F is titled as a notice, it amounts to an order passed affecting - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16186 WP No. 11720 of 2025 civil rights and the petitioner has not been heard before passing of the notice at Annexure - F. 3. It is submitted that as the notice is in effect an order and affects his civil rights to carry on business and order passed is in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent - BBMP submits that they are taking action in light of complaints of the residents in the vicinity and also noticing that there is a violation regarding usage of land, contrary to the revised master plan. Though Annexure - F is in the nature of notice, the time granted of seven days to shift the business of the petitioner from the present place of functioning amounts to an order passed. Such order could not have been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Petitioner is to be afforded an opportunity of making out his response and thereafter, must be afforded an opportunity of hearing after which BBMP is at liberty to take action in accordance with law. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16186 WP No. 11720 of 2025 5. Taking note of the peculiar factual matrix, Annexure-F is to be treated as a Show Cause notice. 6. Petitioner to make out his reply to the said show cause notice within a period of two weeks. Thereafter, respondent - BBMP is to afford an opportunity of personal hearing and proceed further as is permissible in law. 7. In the interregnum, needless to state, respondent - BBMP cannot take action till the proceedings are concluded. Accordingly, Annexure-'F' cannot be enforced in its present form, except as observed. Accordingly, petition is disposed off. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12