- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20186 WP No. 14442 of 2025 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.14442 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SAAVJI MANE A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.22, CHIGURU CHAMBERS 3RD FLOOR, PM ENCLAVE, 2ND CROSS YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU-560 065 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SMT. RAMYA SANDEEP KUMAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT M.S. BUILDING DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE MEDICAL OFFICER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE MANJUNATHA NAGAR WARD NO.99 1ST MAIN ROAD Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20186 WP No. 14442 of 2025 RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560 010 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R.1; SRI.PAVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. AA.VY(RAA.NA)/P.R/ 21/ 25-26 DTD 08.05.2025 ISSUED BY THE R-2 REJECTING THE TRADE LICENSE TO THE PETITIONER PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned endorsement, wherein respondent Authority has called upon the petitioner to shift the business of Restaurant undertaken in a commercial premises on rent basis. The said endorsement is under challenge. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20186 WP No. 14442 of 2025 3. The core grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition revolves around the issuance of an endorsement by respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner has been directed to shift her restaurant business from the existing premises. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that she has lawfully secured the premises in question a commercial shop on lease for the purpose of running a restaurant, and that the said property is situated within a commercial zone, surrounded on all sides by other established commercial establishments. The petitioner further asserts that the impugned action of respondent No.2 stems from the entertainment of a frivolous complaint lodged by a local resident, which was acted upon without conducting a fair and objective verification. To demonstrate the commercial nature of the premises and to substantiate her lawful occupation, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-D, a copy of the electricity connection granted - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20186 WP No. 14442 of 2025 by BESCOM in respect of the premises, which categorically indicates that the connection is for commercial use. 4. In addition to the electricity bill, learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on Annexure-E, which is a copy of the tax paid receipt issued by the concerned local authority. The said receipt evidences that the premises is classified as a non-residential (commercial) property, and that the petitioner is discharging her tax liability accordingly. These documents, taken together, according to the petitioner, clearly establish that she has taken on lease a commercial premises situated within a commercial zone and is legitimately operating a restaurant business therein. It is further submitted that the impugned direction issued by respondent No.2, without any form of notice or opportunity to present her case, is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable in law. 5. Upon a careful perusal of the records and having considered the rival submissions, this Court is of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20186 WP No. 14442 of 2025 opinion that the impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.2 suffers from a fundamental procedural infirmity. The endorsement is in the nature of a conclusive directive, effectively requiring the petitioner to close or shift her restaurant, but it has been issued without putting the petitioner on notice or affording her any opportunity to present her case. Such an action is in clear contravention of the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, respondent No.2 appears to have proceeded solely on the basis of a private complaint, without conducting any independent verification of the documents on record or considering the nature of the property and its classification under zoning regulations. The petitioner has also submitted that she has made substantial financial investment in the said business venture, and any abrupt disruption would result in irreparable hardship. This contention also carries weight. 6. In this background, the Court finds that the impugned endorsement, having the trappings of a final - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20186 WP No. 14442 of 2025 order, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. However, in the interest of fairness and to ensure that due process is followed, it is clarified that the impugned endorsement shall be treated only as a show-cause notice. The petitioner is at liberty to file her detailed objections to the same and to produce all relevant documents in support of her claim that the business is being lawfully carried out in a duly zoned commercial area. Respondent No.2 shall then consider such representation and documents and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. Until such process is duly completed, the impugned endorsement shall not be acted upon. 7. In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20186 WP No. 14442 of 2025 (ii) The impugned endorsement dated 08.05.2025 issued by respondent No.2 shall be treated as a show-cause notice. (iii) The petitioner is granted a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to submit a detailed objection in response to the said show-cause notice. (iv) Upon receipt of the petitioner’s objections and all necessary documents, respondent No.2 shall conduct a proper enquiry and thereafter pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. (v) It is further clarified that pending consideration of the petitioner’s objections and completion of the enquiry, the petitioner shall be permitted to continue her business in the commercial premises in question. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11