4 —1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAICA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 18 day of June. 1998 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R V RAVEENDRAN Writ Petition No 22224 of 1993 Between: G Ravichandran sb Gurunath Naidu Prop Ravi Engineering Works No 65, HMT Main Road Bangalore-54 ... PETITIONER [By Sri Shanthakumar, Adv] Corporation of City of Banga , Banga lore-? by itq Commissioner The Medical Officer of Health (Mallswaiam) Bangalore City Corporation Bavj lore ‘3. The Health Officer Office of the Corpor flon Bangalore City C rpoyation Banga 1 or e-2 4 P )bPY t Babu UDC • Command State Deç.c trnont Headquarters Training C.entr Hebbal, Bangalore—6 . RESPONDENTS [Sri K N Puttegowda, Ads, for R—1 to 3 and Sri J T Rajan, Adv for R—4) a —2 - Writ Petition iq ffld prawing to quah the order dated 22-5-1993 passed by respondent No 2 iide Anexure ‘3’ and etc. This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘8’ group,this day, the Court made the following: ORDER The petitioner was running a workshop under the name and style Ravi Engineering Works, at No 65, HMT Main Road, Bangalore, carrying on his business in fabrication ot steel items like grills, windows, compound gates, collapsible gates, rolling shutters etc. The petitioner had not obtained any licence from the Bangalore City Corporation for carrying on said business. The Health Officer of the corporation issued a notice to the owner ot the premises on 15-4-1993 stating it was tound that the petitioner was running a workshop with 1OHP unauthorisedly and called upon the owner of the premises to stop tie same. Ther was no compliance. Or the oth,,r hand, the petitiur.e, , whc. is the, ..enant of the premises, sent a reply dated 15-5-1993 seeking six months time to leave the piemises. Thereafter, the corporation has issued d closure notice dated 22-5-1993 (Annexure ‘3’] under Section Ppc&i 461(b), of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, and directing closure of the trade on the ground that it was being run unauthorisedly, Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has tiled this petition and sought quashing of Annexure ‘3’ and a direction to the corporation to consider the petitioners representation dated 15—51993 [Annexure ‘H’) for grant of time. 2. This court on 127-1993 granted interim stay for a period of four weeks. Thereafter stay was not continued. 3. Admittedly neither the owner nor the petitioner has obtained any permission or licence for running the workshop. Therefore, the corporation was justified in issuing closure order. In fart what petitioner required was some time to shift the txp workshop 1 He is not entitled to the relief sought. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. JUDGE *pjk