ORDER : 1. The petitioner, Mr. Raghavendra M. is aggrieved by the order dated 27-1-2015 with regard to endorsement dated 27-1-2015 and by letter dated 21-5-2015 passed by the Health Officer (West), B.B.M.P. By the former order, the respondent 3 had informed the petitioner that his trade licence is temporarily withheld. By the later order the respondent 3 had directed the petitioner to close his business of distribution of goods within a period of three days, failing which action would be taken by the BBMP under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a distributor of "Nestle India" products like baby foods, chocolates and coffee to various retailers in and around Nagarbhavi and Kengeri areas. He commenced his business after obtaining necessary registration and licence from the Sales Tax Department. While he was carrying on the distribution activities, some of the residents of the area filed a complaint before the respondent 3 claiming that certain nuisance is being caused by the petitioner's business. Therefore, on 15-3-2014, the respondent 3 issued a notice to the petitioner and directed the petitioner to take necessary steps for getting rid of any inconvenience that may be caused to the complainants. In response to the notice, the petitioner filed a detailed reply. Since in the notice it was pointed out that the petitioner was carrying on the trade of distributing eatable items without having trade licence, on 25-10-2014, the petitioner submitted an application for grant of trade licence. But, instead of considering the application filed by the petitioner, on 27-1-2015, an endorsement was made by the respondent 3 informing the petitioner that his licence is temporarily withheld. Further, by letter dated 21-5-2015, the petitioner was informed that since he does not have a trade licence, he should close down his shop within three days, failing which, action will be taken for locking and seizing the premises. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. The learned Counsel for petitioner has vehemently contended that under Section 353 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the petitioner is not required to seek trade licence from the respondents. Therefore, the endorsement and the letter are highly misplaced and are illegal. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. The learned Counsel for petitioner has vehemently contended that under Section 353 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the petitioner is not required to seek trade licence from the respondents. Therefore, the endorsement and the letter are highly misplaced and are illegal. Secondly, once the petitioner had already applied on 25-10-2014 for grant of trade licence, the respondent 3 could not have sent an endorsement dated 27-1-2015 that the trade licence is temporarily withheld. Obviously when the trade licence was not even granted by the respondent, it could not be withheld. Thirdly, since there was no requirement of law that a trade licence has to be obtained by the petitioner, letter dated 21-5-2015 is illegal and unsustainable. Fourthly, that even if Schedule X deals with coffee and storage of coffee, even then, the petitioner is not brought within Schedule X of the Act as the petitioner is merely distributing the coffee and he is not storing it. Lastly, if the petitioner is required to close down his shop, it would adversely affect his fundamental rights conferred under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the notice and impugned letter need to be interfered with. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner and perused the impugned endorsement and the letter. 5. Section 353(1) of the Act clearly states that no place within the limits of the City shall be used for any of the purpose mentioned under Schedule X without obtaining licence from the Commissioner and except in accordance with the condition specified therein. Although, it is true that Schedule X does not deal with bakery foods and chocolates, but it does deal with coffee. Schedule X deals with the coffee, its processing, grinding, packing, storing and selling. Even if the petitioner were distributing coffee, obviously, he would be distributing the coffee after storing it in his shop. Although the learned Counsel has claimed that storing is temporary and therefore, storing would not come within the word under Schedule X, but the said contention is unacceptable for the reason that provision has not stated the time for which the storing needs to be done. Even if the coffee is being stored for a temporary period, even then, the trade licence would be required from the respondents under the Act. Even if the coffee is being stored for a temporary period, even then, the trade licence would be required from the respondents under the Act. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned Counsel that there is no requirement for seeking trade licence is without merit. 6. The learned Counsel is certainly justified in claiming that when no trade licence has been granted to the petitioner, endorsement dated 27-1-2015 is unjustified. After all, the respondent 3 cannot withhold the licence when it has not even been granted so far. Therefore, endorsement dated 27-1-2015 clearly suffers from the virus of non-application of mind. 7. However, as far as the letter dated 21-5-2015 is concerned, directing the petitioner to close his business activity till the trade licence is granted to him, no fault can be found as it is in consonance with Section 353 of the Act. The learned Counsel of course has raised the contention that by forcing the petitioner to close his business, his fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India have been adversely affected. However, the said argument is misplaced. For Article 19 of the Constitution of India provides reasonable restriction to be placed while carrying on the business; Section 353 of the Act places a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right to carry on a business. Therefore, letter dated 21-5-2015 cannot be said to have violated Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, as Section 353 of the Act merely prescribes the procedure established by the Act, the letter dated 21-5-2015 is in accordance with law. Hence, the said letter does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. As a last resort, the learned Counsel has pleaded that the respondent be directed to consider his application and decide his application for grant of trade licence as expeditiously as possible. The prayer of the learned Counsel is a reasonable one. Since the application has been filed as far back as on 25-10-2014 and since eight months have already elapsed, the respondents are duty bound to consider the said application as expeditiously as possible. 9. The prayer of the learned Counsel is a reasonable one. Since the application has been filed as far back as on 25-10-2014 and since eight months have already elapsed, the respondents are duty bound to consider the said application as expeditiously as possible. 9. Therefore, while setting aside the endorsement dated 27-1-2015, but declining to interfere with the letter dated 21-5-2015, this Court does direct the respondents to decide the petitioner's application for grant of trade licence within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, the petitioner shall not carry on his business application is decided by the respondents. 10. With this direction, the petition is disposed of.