- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14758 WP No. 106449 of 2025 C/W WP No. 106448 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 106449 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 106448 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) IN W.P. NO.106449 OF 2025: BETWEEN: GULAB S/O SHABBIR BIDIWALE, AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. GOVINDPUR GALLI, MUDHOL, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 313. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SAVITA W/O GANESH MANE, AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GOVINDPUR GALLI, MUDHOL, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 313. 2. POSHARAM S/O JAGARAM DEVASI, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. GOVINDPUR GALLI, MUDHOL, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 313. 3. LAXMAN S/O BACHCHAPPA DEVADIGA, AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. GOVINDPUR GALLI, MUDHOL, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 313. 4. SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O MARUTI GHORPADE, AGE. 72 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14758 WP No. 106449 of 2025 C/W WP No. 106448 of 2025 R/O. GOVINDPUR GALLI, MUDHOL, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 313. 5. THE COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, MUDHOL-587 313, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.K. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R5; NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 ARE SERVED; NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.06.2025 PASSED IN M.A. NO.12/2025 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDHOL ON I.A. NO.I FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC AS PER ANNEXURE-M AND DISMISS THE I.A. NO.I. AND ISSUE A WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.08.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDHOL IN M.A. NO.12/2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2023 PASSED BY LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDHOL IN I.A NO.II IN O.S. 102/2022 UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. IN W.P. NO.106448 OF 2025: BETWEEN: GULAB S/O SHABBIR BIDIWALE, AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. GOVINDPUR GALLI, MUDHOL, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 313. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14758 WP No. 106449 of 2025 C/W WP No. 106448 of 2025 AND: 1. SANJAY S/O YASHWANT GHORPADE, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O. GOVINDPUR GALLI, MUDHOL, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 313. 2. THE CHIEF OFFICER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, MUDHOL-587 313, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.K. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. SANJAY Y. GHORPADE, PARTY IN PERSON FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.06.2025 PASSED IN M.A. NO.13/2025 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDHOL ON I.A. NO.I FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC AS PER ANNEXURE-M AND DISMISS THE I.A. NO.I. AND ISSUE A WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.08.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDHOL IN M.A. NO.13/2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2023 PASSED BY LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDHOL IN I.A NO.II IN O.S. 102/2022 UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14758 WP No. 106449 of 2025 C/W WP No. 106448 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the orders passed by the First Appellate Court in Miscellaneous Appeals No.12/25 and 13/25. In terms of the said orders, the Miscellaneous Appeals filed by the respondent-private parties are allowed and injunction orders granted by the Trial Court are set aside. 2. It is noticed that two appeals are filed with the leave of the Court despite the appellants are not the parties before the Trial Court. 3. The petitioner had obtained an order of injunction against the defendant-Municipality on the premise that he should not be evicted from the suit premises without due process of law. The fact that the petitioner is occupying the property is not in dispute. The property does not belong to the defendant-Municipality. It is the apprehension of the petitioner that since the petitioner is carrying on the business of meat, fish and poultry products, the defendant- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14758 WP No. 106449 of 2025 C/W WP No. 106448 of 2025 Municipality is likely to pass an order to close the business of the petitioner and direct the petitioner to shift the business to some other place on the premise that he has not obtained necessary license. The trial Court had granted injunction against the defendant-Municipality. 4. Appeals are filed by the persons who claim to be the residents of the same locality, where the petitioner’s shop is located. The appeals were allowed granting the leave to the appellants to file the appeal. The Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff/ petitioner is not having necessary trade license to carry on the business. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that under Section 256(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, the petitioner need not obtain the trade licence as the petitioner is registered under Micro, Small, Medium Enterprises Act, 2006 (for short, ‘Act of 2006’). - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14758 WP No. 106449 of 2025 C/W WP No. 106448 of 2025 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also urge the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Pushpa G Rao vs. Commissioner/Chief Officer1, in terms of order dated 10.01.2022, has held that the persons whose business is registered under the Act of 2006 are exempted from obtaining the trade licence from the Municipality. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Municipality and the party-in-person would urge before this Court that the trade licence is very much required and the petitioner not having obtained necessary trade licence cannot maintain a suit against the defendant-Municipality and the defendant-Municipality is justified in taking action and directing the petitioner to shift the business to some other place. 8. Party-in-person would also place reliance on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sanjay and Others vs. Commissioner of Municipal Council and 1 W.P.No.33160/2019 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14758 WP No. 106449 of 2025 C/W WP No. 106448 of 2025 Others2, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has directed the Municipality to consider the application filed by the petitioners therein. 9. This Court in the aforementioned case has directed the Municipality to consider the said representations. It is noticed that in the said proceeding, the counsel for the Municipality had made a statement that they will file an application for rejection of plaint by filing the written statement. Accordingly, the case was disposed of. 10. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 11. It is noticed that the petitioner's business is registered under the Act of 2006 in terms of the registration granted on 22.01.2020. In terms of the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Pushpa G Rao supra, it appears that the petitioner is exempted from obtaining the trade licence. Under these circumstances, the 2 W.P.No.105572/2023 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14758 WP No. 106449 of 2025 C/W WP No. 106448 of 2025 Appellate Court could not have allowed the appeals and could not have vacated the temporary injunction order in favour of the petitioner. 12. Since it is urged that the only violation committed by the petitioner is that he has not obtained the trade license, the petitioner shall have the benefit of interim order granted by the Trial Court and it is restored by setting aside the order of the Appellate Court. Hence, the Writ Petitions are allowed. 13. It is made clear that the petitioner, if found violating any of the other provisions of law, the Municipality is competent to take any such action for such violation, the interim order passed shall not come in the way of Municipality taking such action against the petitioner. 14. It is submitted that the petitioner's premises is seized by respondent-Municipality. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14758 WP No. 106449 of 2025 C/W WP No. 106448 of 2025 15. The respondent-Municipality shall allow the petitioner to carry on the business. 16. As already noticed, after the premises is opened if there is any further violation of any law, it is open to the Municipality to take such action as advised in law. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE NAA CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 84