1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2012

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.13217 OF 2012(LB-BMP)

BETWEEN

M/S ENERGIE INC

A PROPRIETARY CONCERN
HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS
AT EDEN HAL, 3RD MAIN, JAYAMAHAL
REP BY ITS PROPRIETRIX
SMT. MADURI P HINGORANI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
... PETITIONER

(By Sri. SATHISH M DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE

N R SQUARE, J C ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 002
RPE BY ITS COMMISSIONER

2. THE MEDICAL OFFICER

BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
JAYAMAHAL RANGE, SUNTAN JI GUNTA ROAD,
BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. RANGASWAMY, ADVOCATE)

 2

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 23.1.12
VIDE ANNX-J AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PERMIT
THE PETITIONER TO RESIDE IN THE BUILDING BEARING
FLAT NO.1 CEDEN HALL NO.14, OLD NO.96, 3RD MAIN,
JAYAMAHAL EXN., BANGALOARE-4; AND ETC.

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRL.HEARING THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

There is force in the submission of Sri.Satish

M.Dodami, learned counsel for the petitioner that the

respondent-BBMP is not justified in locking up the

petitioner’s premises, having undertaken to put to use for

residential purpose. Although Sri.Rangaswamy, learned

counsel for BBMP submits that it was at the instance of

the police authorities who directed the Corporation to

affix a lock on the residential premises since used for

commercial purpose of ‘Beauty and Massage Parlor’ and a

raid when conducted, the petitioner was alleged to have

committed certain of fences punishable under Indian

Penal Code which prosecution is pending before the

 3

Magistrate, in my opinion, are not good grounds to affix a

lock on the premises owned by the petitioner who

undertakes to put it to use for residential purpose since

the building is constructed for a residential purpose and

occupancy certificate issued for the very same purpose.

2. In that view of the matter, the endorsement dt.

23.1.2012 Annexure-J declining the request of the

petitioner to put the premises to use for residential

purpose until the disposal of the case pending before the

Court is unjustified calling for interference.

3. What is intriguing is that the respondent-BBMP is

bound by the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal

Corporation Act, 1976 and Rules framed thereunder in the

matter of issue of trade licence, nevertheless its officer

issued a trade licence to the petitioner to carry on a

'Beauty parlor and massage Parlor' in the residential flat,

which activity is purely commercial though the BBMP had

issued a building licence for construction of a residential

 4

building and completion certificate to use the premises for

residential purpose. The Officer who issued the trade

licence deserves to be hauled up. Instead of taking action

against the Officer concerned, the Commissioner of the

respondent-corporation has shown lackadaisical attitude

in allowing the officer to go 'Scot free'. The Commissioner

of the 1st respondent-corporation to take action against

the officer concerned who issued the trade licence and

impose such punishment as is warranted invoking

disciplinary powers and submit a report to the Registrar-

General of this Court by 30.8.2012.

In the result, the petition is allowed. The

endorsement Annexure-J is quashed and the 1 st

respondent is directed to remove the lock on the premises

bearing Flat No.1-C, Eden Hall, Old No.96, 3rd Main,

Jayamahal Extension, Bangalore, by 26.7.2012.

Sd/-
JUDGE

ln.