- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53547 WP No. 35391 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 35391 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. DAKSHAYINI B W/O. S. UMESH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO.779, 12TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU -560 038. ALSO AT NO.13/1, 1ST CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD, SRIPURAM, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NATARAJA H.T., ADVOCATE) AND: ` 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 002. 2. THE HEALTH OFFICER (MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH), BENGALURU CENTRAL CITY CORPORATION, MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, SHANTHINAGAR DIVISION, 14TH FLOOR, PUB BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BATHE GOWDA K.V., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2) Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53547 WP No. 35391 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE REJECTION OF TRADE LICENCE APPLICATION VIDE ENDORSEMENT DATED 09.10.2025, VIDE REFERENCE NO.D.ªÉÊ/±Á£À/¦.Dgï/220/2025-26 FOLLOWED BY INTIMATION LETTER DATED 31.10.2025, VIDE REFERENCE NO.D.ªÉÊ/±Á£À/¦.Dgï/221/2025-26 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND ANNEXURE-F AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an endorsement bearing No.D.ªÉÊ/±Á£À/¦.Dgï/220/2025-2026 dated 09.10.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 rejecting her request for sanction of a trade licence. She has also sought for quashing of the intimation letter bearing No.D.ªÉÊ/±Á£À/¦.Dgï/221/2025-26 dated 31.10.2025 issued by the respondent No.2. She has also sought for a direction to the respondents to consider the online application - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53547 WP No. 35391 of 2025 filed by her for grant of trade licence to run a refreshment Centre at property No.779, situate at 12th Main Road, HAL 2nd Stage, Indiranagar, Bengaluru, within a time frame and also declare that she is discriminated vis a vis other persons who are similarly situate and who were granted licence. 2. The petitioner claims that she was permitted to run an eatery at No.777/k situate at 1st Cross, 13th Main Road, HAL 2nd Stage, Indiranagar, Bengaluru, in the year 2020. The said licence was renewed from time to time and was in force till 2025-26. The respondents after receiving a complaint from the residents of 1st Cross, 13th Main Road, HAL 2nd Stage, initiated action to verify whether the premises where the petitioner was running the eatery lay within the residential zone or in the commercial zone. The respondents after conducting an inspection and after verifying the master plan, came to the conclusion that the trade licence granted to the petitioner was in respect of a premises which lay within the residential zone. Thereafter, the petitioner made an online application in the website of Greater Bengaluru Authority for grant of trade licence for the year 2025-26 to run the eatery to No.779, 1st Cross, 12th Main Road, HAL 2nd Stage, Indiranagar, Bengaluru. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53547 WP No. 35391 of 2025 The said request was rejected by the respondent No.2 in terms of the endorsement dated 09.10.2025 on the ground that the premises situate at No.779, 1st Cross, 12th Main Road, HAL 2nd Stage, also comes within the residential zone. Being aggrieved by the said endorsement and intimation letter dated 31.10.2025, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. When the petition was taken up for final hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the premises where the petitioner intends to shift her business lies within a residential zone as identified in the master plan. He submits that the petitioner would make appropriate arrangements to shift the eatery to a commercial zone and that she would commence business after obtaining appropriate licence from the respondents. He submits that the petitioner be granted some reasonable time to shift the eatery to another location. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the request of the petitioner and submitted that the residents of the aforementioned area are filing complaints one after the other compelling the respondents to take immediate action as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53547 WP No. 35391 of 2025 the business conducted by the petitioner is causing nuisance to the neighbourhood and that the petitioner has allowed vehicles to be parked on the road and thereby has obstructed the free flow of traffic. He, therefore, contends that no indulgence be shown to the petitioner. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Since it is not in dispute that the place where the petitioner intends to shift her business also lies within a residential zone, the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 rejecting the request of the petitioner for a trade licence for that place is just and proper. No fault could be found with the respondents in doing so. Now that the petitioner has proposed to shift the eatery to another location within the commercial zone, this writ petition is disposed off upholding the impugned endorsement and the impugned intimation letter issued by the respondent No.2. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53547 WP No. 35391 of 2025 7. The petitioner is granted a month’s time to shift the eatery to any other location within the commercial zone and conduct her business in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17