SRI AMIT AGARWAL vs THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (EAST)

Both the learned counsel for the parties submit that this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in AA Hospitality LLP., (The

Open Box) vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and another [Writ Petition No. 763 of 2018 and connected matter, decided on January 11,

2018]. This court in the aforesaid matter held thus:

The only grievance and apprehension of the petitioner-restaurant raised before this Court is that straightaway a direction to close

down its establishment has been issued without giving an opportunity of hearing or passing an adjudication order specifically pointing

out the violation of various rules and regulations by the petitioner-restaurant is also rather an unfounded apprehension. The petitioner-

restaurant has not even approached the respondent-Joint Commissioner by a suitable representation with relevant evidence.

Therefore, it cannot be said whether the threat to close down the petitioner-restaurant is an adjudicatory order passed by the Joint

Commissioner or is only an indicated consequence, which may follow, if the petitioner fails to show-cause before the concerned

authorities.

To this Court, it is very clear that it is not merely the label of impugned communication, but the whole tenor of the impugned

communication is only that of a notice and the threat of closure is only a consequence to follow, if adequate cause is not shown before

the respondent authority.

Of course, all these will require an adjudication process at the hands of the concerned authorities and, therefore, it would be

misconceived and premature for this Court to cut short the said process and take it upon itself to undertake such an adjudication

process. There is neither any evidence on record nor details of allegations and complaints of adverse material before this Court on the

basis of which the said notice has been given to the petitioner-restaurant and it also appears that such notices have been given to a

large number of commercial establishments of this nature in the city of Bengaluru. The Municipal authorities should ensure compliance

with all relevant norms and standards including fire safety norms by the establishments. If all such individual causes were to be taken

up by this Court so prematurely at this stage, the very purpose of giving all these notices for an adjudication to be made by the

concerned competent authority is likely to be frustrated. This Court is not inclined to do so.

Therefore, it is considered appropriate, just and proper under these circumstances to direct the petitioner to appear before the

concerned authority in pursuance of the said notice immediately and furnish all relevant evidence and materials before the concerned

authority. It goes without saying that the said authority will put across whatever adverse material is available against the petitioner-

restaurant or the norms and requirements which they should fulfill and after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing and

considering the evidence adduced by the petitioner-restaurant and compliance with requirements made by them, a reasoned and

speaking order would be passed by the concerned authority. That is the only appropriate way of complying with the principles of

natural justice which is embedded in the rule of law, by which our country is governed in the constitutional scheme and which

deserves to be followed without an iota of doubt in the cases of this nature as well.

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel and on perusal of the order, the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms.

The respondent-authority shall give opportunity of hearing not only to the petitioner in this Writ Petition, but also to the Resident Welfare

Association and all other persons/entities who may have any grievance in the matter and may likely to be affected, and pass appropriate order.

The petitioner and other affected persons are directed to appear before the respondent-authority in the first instance on January 23, 2018 at

11.00 am During the course of enquiry, the respondent authority can even call upon the petitioner-restaurant to abide by other regulatory measures

including fire safety measures as is expected of the petitioner-restaurant and other similarly situated business establishments as well. It is expected

of the concerned authority to pass appropriate orders in the matter, as expeditiously as possible. A copy of this order be sent to the respondents.

No costs.

In view of disposal of the Writ Petition on the above terms, all the pending interlocutory applications are also disposed of, as the same do not

survive for consideration.