M/S Vesper Pharmaceuticals vs. Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Vesper Pharmaceuticals, manufactures animal feeds, supplements, and medicines. They possess GST registration and other necessary permissions, including a Trade Licence from the respondent, Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), for the year 2016-17. The BBMP, through its Medical Officer of Health, issued a notice dated 12.01.2019 (Annexure-F) alleging that the petitioner's commercial activity is being conducted in a residential zone with a 40-foot road width, making it impermissible according to Zoning Regulations and directions in W.P. No.3676/2008. The petitioner was directed to close their establishment within three days, failing which further action would be initiated under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. The petitioner sought to quash this notice, deeming it illegal, arbitrary, and without authority.
Held
The Court held that the question of permissibility of the petitioner's activity requires factual adjudication. The impugned notice did not contain a categorical finding on the nature of the activity and its permissibility. Therefore, the Court directed the respondent-BBMP to hear the petitioner and record a finding on the permissibility of their activities. While making this determination, the BBMP was instructed to consider the directions of the Division Bench in W.P.No.3676/2008 (dated 19.02.2008), the Zoning Regulations, the Revised Master Plan-2015, notification No.UDD 105 MNJ 2008 dated 20.03.2015, and any other relevant circulars. This consideration was to be completed within six weeks. The Court also clarified that the notice at Annexure-F is merely a notice and not an executable order. The prayer for renewal of the Trade Licence would be considered subsequent to the determination of the activity's permissibility. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the notice dated 12.01.2019 (Annexure-F) issued by the respondent No.2 is illegal, arbitrary, and without the authority of law, and in violation of principles of natural justice? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the impugned notice is illegal, arbitrary, and issued without authority of law, violating principles of natural justice. They argued that the notice did not record a categorical finding regarding the nature of their activity and its permissibility. Revenue/State's argument: The respondents (BBMP) argued that the commercial activity was impermissible due to its location in a residential zone with a specific road width, citing Zoning Regulations and directions in W.P. No.3676/2008. They initiated action based on these grounds.
Sections Cited
Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER
The petitioner is stated to be a Firm involved in the manufacture of animal feeds, supplements and medicines for the use of animals.
It is stated that the petitioner’s company has been registered with the Commercial Tax Department and has obtained GST Registration and other permissions including from the Directorate of Industries and Commerce.
It is also stated that the petitioner had obtained Trade Licence from the respondents for the year 2016-17. 4. It is stated that the respondent-BBMP has issued a notice at Annexure-F dated 12.01.2019 stating
3
that the commercial activity that is being carried out is being conducted in a residential zone and the road width being 40 feet, the said activity is impermissible in light of the Zoning Regulations. The notice also states that the said activity carried on by the petitioner is impermissible in light of the directions in W.P. No.3676/2008. 5. The petitioner was called upon to close his establishment within a period of three days failing which, appropriate action would be initiated under the provisions of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. 6. It is to be noticed that the question of permissibility of the activity of the petitioner would entail factual adjudication and the notice impugned does not record the categorical finding as to the nature of activity and its permissibility. It would be appropriate to direct the respondent-BBMP to hear the
4
petitioner and record a finding as to the permissibility or otherwise of the activities of the petitioner. While considering the nature of activity of the petitioner and its permissibility, the respondent-BBMP is to take note of the directions of the Division Bench passed in W.P.No.3676/2008 on 19.02.208, the Zoning Regulations, the Revised Master Plan-2015 and also notification No.UDD 105 MNJ 2008, Bengaluru dated 20.03.2015 and such other Circulars as may have a bearing with respect to the permissibility of the activity being carried on by the petitioner.
Such consideration is to be completed within a period not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
As regards the prayer relating to consideration of the petitioner’s application for renewal of Trade Licence, the same would be considered consequent to the determination to be made as regards
5
permissibility of activity of the petitioner. In light of the observations made above, it is made clear that the notice at Annexure-F dated 12.01.2019 is only a notice and is not an executable order.
Subject to above observations, this petition is disposed of. JUDGE
SJK
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.