- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17866 WP No. 11758 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 11758 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. ATITHI GRAND PG CO SITUATED AT R/AT NO. 58/4, 1ST CROSS, NEAR CNS STORE NALLURAHALLI, WHITE FIELD POST BENGALURU - 560 086 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI GUNDRE CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY PH-9880279279 EMAIL-CHANDRA.GIRI279EGMAIL.COM … PETITIONER (BY SRI. NANDISH GOWDA G B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE HEALTH OFFICER MAHADEVAPURA RANGE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU - 560 001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17866 WP No. 11758 of 2025 IMPUGNED NOTICE DTD 13.03.2025 BEARING NO. 267/2024- 25 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the validity of the notice at Annexure-'E' dated 13.03.2025. In terms of the notice at Annexure-'E', the respondent Authority has sought to take action on the ground that the activity of petitioner is impermissible in terms of the Zoning Regulations in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.3676/2008 and connected petitions. That the notice at Annexure-'E' is issued to the wife of the owner and the petitioner has not been issued with any notice, though the paying guest accommodation is being run by the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in light of the objection of neighbours, the Trade Licence that has been applied by the petitioner has - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17866 WP No. 11758 of 2025 been rejected as at Annexure-'F'. It is also submitted that the paying guest accommodation is an ongoing service, there cannot be abrupt termination, but there ought to be a reasonable time granted in the event of any adverse order being passed. It is further submitted that there can be no action without hearing the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent - BBMP submits that action has been initiated in terms of the Zonal Regulations. 4. Taking note of the submission of both sides, the petition is disposed off. The notice at Annexure-'E' dated 13.03.2025 is to be treated as notice issued to the petitioner. The petitioner to make out a reply to the said notice within ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Upon such reply being made, the respondent - BBMP to hear the petitioner and proceed to pass orders as per law. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17866 WP No. 11758 of 2025 5. Needless to state that, till action is taken of considering reply of the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing and thereafter passing an order, the petitioner would be permitted to continue with the present business. 6. Further, it is needless to state that, if the petitioner fails to make out a reply within ten days as observed above, the respondent BBMP to proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR