ANDANAPPA Vs. CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admittedly the petitioner is carrying on the business of milk vending in a shop premises measuring 4' x 6' of Dqor No.40, 5th Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore (hereinafter referreed to as 'the premises') owned by one Shri K.N.Veeranna as his lessee. On 17th, July 1978 the owner of the premises complained to the Administrator of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore, to stop the business off milk vending by the petitioner for the reasons seated in his representation. On the next day, some persons claiming themselves to be the residents of the premises also complained to the Corporation in the matter. On those representation a Memo-show cause notice No.CS 7.171/78-79 dated 21-7-1978 was issued to the petitioner by the Commissioner of Corporation to) show cause as to why he should not be prosecuted. Evidently as the petitioner did, not comply with the notice dated 21-7-1978, the Commissioner issued, him another Memo No.HL(FT) 1034 78-79 d/14-8-1978 to close down the business immediately failing which action will be taken to close down the business departmentally in addition to prosecuting him in a Court of law. After this notice also, the petitioner did not close down, his business in the premises and therefore on 30/31-8-1978 the Commissioner issued a Memo No.Hh(l) DCO 62/78-79 purporting to be under Sec.343 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act No.14 of 1977) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') (Exhibit A), reiterating as to what had been stated in the Memq d/14-8-1978. That Memo reads thus : -

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the vending of milk in the premises does not require a licence under the Act and the action taken by the authorities is at the instance of his landlord who wields considerable influence with the Corporation authorities. In denial of the allegations made ,or in justification of the action taken, the respondents have not filed their statement of objections, but they have been content to argue their case by producing the records of the Corporation.

(3.) Shri H. Subramanya Jois, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that no licence was required for vending milk under the Act and therefore the action taken by the authorities besides being unauthorised is highhanded and arbitrary. Shri A.Jagannatha Shetty, learned counsel for the respondents, refuted the contention of Shri Subramanya Jois and urged that milk is foqd and therefore the same cannot be sold without obtaining a licence under Sec.343 of the Act.