- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2264 WP No. 11975 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 11975 OF 2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. PRABHAKAR SHETTY S/O VITTAL SHETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YELARS NO.202, 2ND FLOOR KALYANI VITTAL PLOT BANNANJE, UDUPI -576 101. 2. G. KARUNAKARA SHETTY S/O G. PAKEERAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, NO.303, 3RD FLOOR VYAVAHAR APARTMENT BANNANJE, UDUPI - 576 101. 3. VEERESH SUVARNA S/O DEVARAJ SUVARNA AGED ABOUT 61 YELARS, FLAT NO.302, VYAVAHAR APARTMENT BANNANJE, UDUPI - 576 101. 4. M. PUNDALIKA KUDWA S/O DEVARAYA KUDWA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS FLAT NO.104, VYAVAHAR APARTMENT BANNANJE, UDUPI - 576 101. 5. PANDURANGA A. BHANDARY S/O ANNAIAH BHANDARY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, FLAT NO.102, VYAVAHAR APARTMENT BANNANJE, UDUPI - 576 101. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2264 WP No. 11975 of 2017 6. PRASHANTH SHET S/O SHIVARAYA SHET AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, FLAT NO.001, VYAVAHAR APARTMENT BANNANJE, UDUPI - 576 101. 7. DINESH BHANDARY S/O ANNAIAH BHANDARY AGED ABOUT YEARS, FLAT NO.406 VYAVAHAR APARTMENT BANNANJE, UDUPI - 576 101. 8. ANIL SHETTY S/O SESHAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS FALT NO. 003, VYAVAHAR APARTMENT BANNANJE, UDUPI - 576 101. 9. DINESH K.R S/O LATE RATHNAKAR.K AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO.2-2-44B3 SITHARA NEAR MANDOVI RESIDENCY SHIRIBEEDU, UDUPI - 576 101. 10. GANGADHAR.S. BANGERA S/O K.SOMAPPA AMIN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS K.S. HOUSE, POST KUDRU KERE VIA MALPE, UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 106. 11. K. PRAKASH SHETTY S/O LATE K. MADHAVA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS NO.9, 'ASHA' ALI ASKAR ROAD, OFF CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M J ALVA.,ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2264 WP No. 11975 of 2017 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI 576 101. 3. THE COMMISSIONER UDUPI CITY MUNICIPALITY UDUPI 576 101. 4. UDUPI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY BANNANJE, UDUPI - 576 101. 5. CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES PETROLEUM AND EXLPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANISATION (PESO) 'A' BLOCK, CGO COMPLEX, 5TH FLOOR, SEMINARY HILLS, NAGAPUR, MAHARASHTRA - 440 006. 6. THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES 2ND FLOOR, CITY CENTRE, OPPOSITE HOTEL ROOPA BALMATTA, MANGALURU - 575 001. 7. M/S CONFIDENCE PETROLEUM INDIA LTD. REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER NO.265, ANUGRAHA, 27TH CROSS, BNM COLLEGE ROAD 2ND STAGE, BANASHANKARI BENGALURU - 560 070. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA., AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. T.I. ABDULLA., ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. K. PRASAD HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. MADANAN PILLAI R, CGC FOR R5 & R6) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2264 WP No. 11975 of 2017 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE R-2 IN FAVOUR OF THE R- 7 DATED 28.10.2016 VIDE ANNEX-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioners claiming to be the residents of Bannanje, which was earlier part of Modanidamburu Village, Udupi Taluk are before this Court seeking following reliefs: i) To Issue of Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, Order or Direction quashing the impugned No Objection Certificate issued by the Respondent No. 2 in favour of the Respondent No. 7 vide No. CDS. ARM (2) CR.03/2016- 17/C-6/E no 7448 dated 28.10.2016 which is produced at Annexure 'A'. ii) Grant cost of this writ Petition. iii) And also grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit considering the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the averments and the grounds urged in the petition submits that the area within which the petitioners are residing is a residential zone and respondent-authorities without taking into consideration of the uses which are permissible in the said area, have accorded permission to respondent No.7 to run a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2264 WP No. 11975 of 2017 gas filling station which is illegal and unauthorised. That despite petitioners filing their objection, without considering the same the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner has issued 'No Objection Certificate' as per Annexure-A, which is in violation of the zoning regulations, besides exposing the petitioners for hazardous situations. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition. 3. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, submits that 'No Objection Certificate' as per Annexure-A came to be issued by the respondent No.2 upon the recommendation made by respondent No.4-Udupi Urban Development Authority, as such, no illegality can be attributed to respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4- Udupi Urban Development Authority submits that it has no control over issuing of the permission or no objection certificate as it falls within the domain of respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, they are not responsible. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7 submits that claim of the petitioners that the area within which respondent No.7 is permitted to carry on business of gas filling - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2264 WP No. 11975 of 2017 station is a residential zone, is false and incorrect. He submits that the said area is fully a commercial and business area, wherein establishment and running of the gas filling station business is very much permissible. He also points out that even under special circumstances respondent-authorities have discretionary power, considering the usage to grant such permission. Therefore, he submits there is no illegality in allowing respondent No.7 to establish and run the gas filling station. 6. Heard and perused the records. 7. Zoning regulation concerning the area in question issued by the respondent No.4- Udupi Urban Development Authority is produced by the petitioners. Perusal of the uses permitted under residential zones indicate that there is no provision for authorizing and permitting for establishing and running businesses of any petrol pumps or gas filling stations. As regards the uses permitted in the commercial zone which is further classified into retail business zone and wholesale business zone, though there is a provision for establishing filling station, which includes petrol bunk but excludes gas - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2264 WP No. 11975 of 2017 filling station. The dispute is with regard to very classification of zones. While the petitioners claim the same to be the residential zone, respondent No.7 claim the same to be the commercial zone. Irrespective of whether the area falls within the residential zone or commercial zone in either case clearly there is no provision for permitting gas filling station as noted above. 8. However, learned counsel for the respondent No.7 insists that under the Zoning regulations there is a provision for permitting storage of inflammable material in wholesale business areas under special circumstances. This Court is not persuaded by the said submission, inasmuch as the storage of inflammable material cannot be compared with permitting establishment or running of gas filling station. Both are different and distinct. 9. It is surprising that the authorities, namely respondent Nos.2 and 4 have not looked into this aspect of the matter while permitting respondent No.7 to run the gas filling station and ignorance is pleaded before this Court about they not knowing about the provisions contained in zoning regulations. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2264 WP No. 11975 of 2017 10. Nevertheless, in the light of there being a dispute with regard to the very zoning area within which the petitioners are located, this Court deems it appropriate to relegate the parties to the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, who shall after affording opportunity to the petitioners and respondent No.7 to pass appropriate orders taking into consideration the Udupi zoning regulation as noted above and within an outer limit of sixty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 11. Petition is disposed of. 12. All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12