- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45131 WP No. 47877 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 47877 OF 2018 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: M/S. PAVITHRA RICE TRADERS A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN AND HAVING ITS BUSINESS PREMISES AT NO.1848, 2ND MAIN ROAD, H.A.L. III STAGE, NEW THIPPASANDRA, NEAR VEGETABLE MARKET, BENGALURU - 560 075. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002. 3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (EAST) BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU - 560 002. 4. THE HEALTH OFFICER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE C.V.RAMAN NAGAR ZONE, ULSOOR LAKE, BENGALURU-560032. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45131 WP No. 47877 of 2018 5. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK, BANGALORE. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 27.11.2018 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4; SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO.AAY/CVR/PR/68/2018-19 DATED 01.10.2018, ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 AS PER ANNEXURE-K. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged a notice bearing No. D.ªÉÊ/¹.«.Dgï/¦.Dgï/68/2018-2019 issued by the respondent No.4 by which it was called upon to close down the commercial activity undertaken on the ground that it was lying within a residential area. 2. The petitioner claims that the Site bearing No.1848, ground floor, 6th B Cross, 2nd Main, HAL III Stage, New Thippasandra, Bengaluru-560 075 (henceforth referred to as 'the property' / 'the premises') was purchased by the proprietrix of the petitioner at a public auction conducted by - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45131 WP No. 47877 of 2018 the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The proprietrix of the petitioner was granted a licence by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) for the purpose of vending groceries and regulated items. The petitioner claims that it was registered under the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 and also registered with the Department of Labour. It was also registered as a Dealer under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. It contends that it was carrying on vending of groceries and was a neighbourhood utility shop. However, the respondent No.4 issued a notice dated 05.06.2018 stating that the petitioner is carrying on commercial activity in violation of the Zoning Regulations and that the petitioner failed to reply to the earlier notice. The proprietrix of the petitioner claims that she replied to the said notice contending that she was carrying on the commercial activity from the year 2006 and she was running the grocery shop in a part of the premises belonging to her. She contends that the respondent No.4 without conducting any enquiry and without hearing the objections raised, issued another notice dated 01.10.2018 to the petitioner alleging that it was conducting commercial activity in a residential zone and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45131 WP No. 47877 of 2018 thereby, there was violation of the Zoning Regulations and Guidelines of the Government dated 20.03.2015 as also the violation of the order passed by this Court in W.P No.3676/2008. The petitioner was therefore called upon to close down the commercial activity immediately failing which the respondent No.4 would take necessary action to close it down. The petitioner claims that it replied to the respondent No.4 on 09.10.2018 as well as respondent No.3 on 10.10.2018 stating that the commercial activity is run from a small portion of the house from the year 2006 and did not violate any provision of law. The petitioner apprehending that the respondents may take coercive steps against it has filed this writ petition challenging the notice dated 01.10.2018 issued by the respondent No.4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 without conducting a spot inspection of the property of the petitioner accused it of conducting commercial activities in a residential zone. He contends that even in a residential zone, certain commercial activities are allowed and in the instant case, the petitioner is running the business in a part of the residence and therefore, it was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45131 WP No. 47877 of 2018 incumbent upon the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to inspect the property before issuing a notice. He contends that in similar circumstances, a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P No.45948/2018 connected with W.P No.44298/2018 (disposed off on 22.08.2019), had quashed the orders impugned therein passed by the respondent No.3 - Joint Commissioner (East), Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and remitted the matter back to the respondent No.3. He, therefore, prays that the notice impugned in this petition also may be quashed having regard to the fact that the petitioner is conducting commercial activities, only in a part of the premises. 4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 does not dispute that as per Regulations framed in the Revised Master Plan-2015, ancillary usage is permitted in a residential zone and residential mixed zone in Ring 1 and Ring 2, which is up to 20% of the built up area or 50 sq. m., whichever is lower provided the width of the road is above 40 feet. Therefore, the respondents must have visited the property of the petitioner and must have taken physical measurements of the property and the road and must have thereafter taken steps. The impugned notice issued by the respondent No.4 to the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45131 WP No. 47877 of 2018 petitioner merely states that the petitioner is conducting commercial activity in a residential zone and that the same is in violation of the Zoning Regulations and Guidelines of the Government dated 20.03.2015 as well as in violation of the Order passed by this Court in W.P No.3678/2008. This, however, does not pass the muster of reasonableness and therefore, it is appropriate to direct the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to physically measure the property of the petitioner and the road including drain and margin if any and thereafter ascertain whether area where commercial activity is conducted by the petitioner is more than 20% of the built up area or 50 sq. m. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 may thereafter proceed in accordance with law. In order to facilitate respondent Nos.3 and 4 to do so, they may inspect the property of the petitioner on 01.12.2025. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45