- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16784 WP No. 107029 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 107029 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. M.S.MALAGI INDUSTRIES, SANGAMESHWARA NAGAR, BYADGI, BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT. MANJULA S. MALAGI, W/O. SANJAY MALAGI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, TQ: BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI-581106. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGARAJ APPANNANAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, VIKASA SOUDHA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9TH FLOORS, V.V. TOWER, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAVERI TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI-581110. 4. THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, BYADGI, TQ: BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI-581106. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.10 16:35:49 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16784 WP No. 107029 of 2025 5. RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O. FAKKIRAPPA HADIMANI, AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. SANGAMESHWARA NAGAR, BYADGI, TQ: BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI-581106. 6. RAMESH S/O. MAHANTAPPA GOUDAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. SANGAMESHWARA NAGAR, BYADGI, TQ: BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI-581106. 7. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O. LATE SHIVABASAPPA SANKANNANAVAR, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. SANGAMESHWARA NAGAR, BYADGI, TQ: BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI-581106. 8. CHANDRAGOUDA S/O. SHIDDANAGOUDA MARIGOUDAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. SANGAMESHWARA NAGAR, BYADGI, TQ: BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI-581106. 9. RAVI S/O. SANGAPPA MALAGI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. SANGAMESHWARA NAGAR, BYADGI, TQ: BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI-581106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV. FOR R4; SRI. NAVEEN CHATRAD, ADV. FOR R5 TO R9) THIS WRIT PEITION IS FILED UNDER ARTILCES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 04-04-2025 IN NO.PUSABYA/AAROGYA/VAHI-2025-26/06 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND THE REMINDER NOTICE DATED 11-09-2025 IN NO.PUSABYA/AAROGYA/ VAHI-2025-26 VIDE ANNEXURE-K ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT, DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO RELOCATE/SHIFT THE PETITIONER’S LAWFUL INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY FROM THE INDUSTRIAL AREA AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16784 WP No. 107029 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the notices/orders dated 04.04.2025 and 11.09.2025 issued by respondent No.4 marked as Annexures-J and K. 2. In terms of the said notices/orders marked at Annexures-J and K, the petitioner was directed to remove the industrial unit on the premise that it is causing nuisance to the neighbouring residents. The impugned notices/orders are said to have been issued pursuant to a complaint lodged by the neighbours. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the procedure contemplated under Section 257 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 19641, has not been followed. It is his further submission that the petitioner had established the industrial unit with due permission from the concerned Municipality under Section 256 of Act of 1964. Thus, he would 1 For short, ‘Act of 1964’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16784 WP No. 107029 of 2025 contend that the impugned notices/orders are liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 would submit that notice was issued granting six months' time to the petitioner to remove the industry unit, after receiving a complaint from the public and obtaining the opinion of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.5 to 9 would submit that a resolution was passed by the Council to shift the premises and said resolution is not called in question, as such the petition is not maintainable. 6. The Court has considered the contentions raised the Bar and perused the records. 7. Even in a situation where an establishment has commenced, after obtaining necessary permission under Section 256, Section 257 contemplates a procedure for removal or shifting of such establishment, provided a case is made out for exercise of such power. Section 257(3) contemplates that a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16784 WP No. 107029 of 2025 written notice be issued to the affected person and an opportunity of hearing be afforded to them. 8. As can be seen from the records, the impugned notices/orders indicate that the petitioner was not heard before the order was passed. Straightaway, a direction was issued to the petitioner to shift the premises within six months. 9. Though the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents No.5 to 9 would contend that there is a resolution passed pursuant to the notices, and said resolution is not questioned, the Court is of the view that there is nothing on record to indicate that resolution was passed pursuant to the procedure contemplated under Section 257 of Act of 1964. 10. Hence, the following: ORDER a) The writ petition is allowed. b) The notices/orders dated 04.04.2025 and 11.09.2025 issued by respondent No.4 marked as Annexures-J and K, are quashed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16784 WP No. 107029 of 2025 c) The petitioner shall reply to the notices marked at Annexures-J and K by treating them as show-cause notices, and thereafter, the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing, and an appropriate order shall be passed in accordance with law. d) It is made clear that the Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the matter. e) All contentions kept open. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PMP Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9