ORDER : R. DEVDAS J., The petitioner is aggrieved by a trade licence issued by the respondent-BBMP in favour of respondent No.7 for carrying on activity of ‘Auto Car Spa’ as found at Annexures ‘F’, ‘F1’ and ‘G’. 2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent No.7 has established a car washing centre and ceramic spray centre in the property which is situated behind the residence of the petitioner. Respondent No.7 has obtained the trade licence for carrying on the activity in properties bearing site Nos.1009 and 1010, situated on 80 ft Road, A-Sector, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore. It is submitted that the activity which is permitted by the BBMP and which is carried on by respondent No.7 is in total contravention of the Zonal Regulations, building bye-laws and is a cause for concern, since it is damaging the environment around the locality and is polluting the lake which is situated adjacent to the property in question. 3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that after the seventh respondent entered appearance and filed statement of objections to the writ petition, he has produced copy of a plan sanctioned by the Karnataka Housing Board in the year 2000-01 in respect of site bearing No.1009 for putting up a residential building on a portion of the property, while a major portion in the frontage is kept open. It is submitted that from the year 2016, the seventh respondent has put up a structure encompassing the front portion of the property bearing site No.1009 and the entire property bearing site No.1010 and has put up a structure without leaving any set backs. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent-Health Officer of BBMP has not cared to visit the property before issuing the trade licence in favour of the seventh respondent. 4. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the respondent-BBMP is the authority which is now vested with the power of sanctioning the plan with respect to all the properties falling within Yelahanka New Town. It is submitted that the respondent-BBMP authorities have not verified as to whether sanction plan was obtained by the seventh respondent and whether the structure put up on the property in question are in consonance with the sanction plan and whether the structure complies with the requirement of the building bye-laws. It is submitted that the respondent-BBMP authorities have not verified as to whether sanction plan was obtained by the seventh respondent and whether the structure put up on the property in question are in consonance with the sanction plan and whether the structure complies with the requirement of the building bye-laws. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel has taken this Court through the relevant provisions i.e., Section 295(5) of The Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) which provides that only after obtaining a sanction from the competent authority could any person venture to put up any structure on the property falling within the jurisdiction of BBMP. It is submitted that Section 299 of the Act, requires that every person who intends to put up any structure is required to make an application in writing seeking approval of the plan. Since it was the contention of respondent No.7 that he has not put up any permanent structure, learned Senior Counsel points out to Section 2(1-A) of the Act which defines ‘Building’. It is submitted that a plain reading of the definition of the words ‘building’ as provided in the Act, shows that even a temporary structure could not be erected without approval or sanction at the hands of the Commissioner of BBMP. 5. The learned Senior Counsel has taken this Court through the Zonal Regulations which govern the development in the City of Bengaluru. It is submitted that Section 14 of the Karnataka Town and Coutnry Planning Act, 1961 provides that when once a Master Plan is published under sub-section (1) of Section 10, every land use, every change in land use and every development in the area covered by the plan subject to Section 14-A shall conform to the provisions of the Act, Master Plan and the report as finally approved by the State Government. It is submitted that the Zonal Regulations are part of the Master Plan. It is submitted that the Zonal Regulations are part of the Master Plan. Taking this Court through the Zonal Regulations, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that by any stretch of imagination, the establishment of a car washing activity which is also called as ‘service station’ by respondent No.7, could not be established in the property in question, since admittedly the property falls within the ‘Residential Main’ zone in Ring-III as provided in the Zonal Regulations and in terms of the Zonal Regulation, for a property situated within the Residential Main zone of Ring-III, even ancillary land use is restricted to 20% or 50 sq. mtrs. whichever is lesser. Moreover, it is submitted that when once it is admitted by the seventh respondent that he has not obtained any sanctioned plan for putting up any structure, then the respondent-BBMP authorities could not have issued the trade licence since the structure put up by respondent No.7 was admittedly illegal. 6. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that there is a lake situated next to the property in question and in terms of Clause 4.12.2 of the regulations, where there was a water body, a buffer of 30.0 meters was required to be left as buffer zone since it is considered as ‘no development zone’. It is submitted that the activity carried on by the seventh respondent has become an environmental hazard as the fumes emanating from the ceramic spray and the water gun used for the purpose of cleaning the cars is polluting the environment and the neighbourhood. It is submitted that the sound emanating from the compressors is creating huge noise pollution around the vicinity. 7. Sri A.S.Ponnanna, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.7 contended that the seventh respondent has not put up any structure on the property in question. He therefore submits that the question of reading the definition of the word ‘building’ would also not arise. In the same vein, it was contended that when no structure has been put up by respondent No.7, the question of leaving any setbacks also would not arise. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner has filed this petition only with an oblique motive having failed to secure any orders at the hands of the competent Civil Court where the seventh respondent had in fact filed O.S.No.8185/2019 seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the petitioner herein. 8. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner has filed this petition only with an oblique motive having failed to secure any orders at the hands of the competent Civil Court where the seventh respondent had in fact filed O.S.No.8185/2019 seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the petitioner herein. 8. Sri A.S.Ponnanna, learned Senior Counsel submits that the writ petition itself is not maintainable in view of the fact that if a person is aggrieved by the action of the respondent-BBMP in granting a trade licence, the same is appealable under Section 444 of the Act. It is submitted that if the petitioner is aggrieved that the seventh respondent has put up any structure without obtaining sanction or building licence or that no setback has been left, the authorities were required to be moved and action as contemplated under Section 321 of the Act was required to be initiated by the competent authority. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the question as to whether there is a structure, whether it requires sanction and whether there is violation of the building bye-laws, are all disputed questions of facts and therefore, the petitioner cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to redress his grievance. Moreover, it is submitted that seventh respondent has been doing the business from the year 2016 and there has been no complaint made by the neighbours except the petitioner who is situated on the hindside of the property belonging to the seventh respondent. The learned Senior Counsel submits that by virtue of an interim order passed by this Court on 03.03.2020, the seventh respondent has been prevented from carrying on the activities though a trade licence has been legitimately obtained by the seventh respondent. 9. Sri K.N.Puttegowda, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-BBMP submits that statement of objections have been filed on behalf of the respondent-BBMP and it has been stated in the objections that respondent No.7 has not obtained a sanctioned plan for putting up the structure. However, on the question of issuance of trade licence, it was pointed out from the order dated 19.02.2014, passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Citizens’ Action Forum and others Vs. However, on the question of issuance of trade licence, it was pointed out from the order dated 19.02.2014, passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Citizens’ Action Forum and others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.3676/2008 and connected matters that while considering the question of the validity of the Revised Master Plan 2015, the Hon’ble Division Bench, while referring to the affidavit filed by the Commissioner-BDA detailing the proposals to amend the Zoning Regulations, it was noticed that insofar as Ring-III is concerned, the ancillary usages may be permitted as the main use in Residential Main zone and in Residential Mixed zones if the plot size is more than 1000 mtrs. having frontage of 10 mtrs. or more and if the width of the road is more than 60 feet. It is submitted that in view of the said observations made by the Hon’ble Division Bench, probably the authorities had issued the trade licence in favour of the seventh respondent. 10. On the question of alternative remedy canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel Sri A.S.Ponnanna, by way of reply, the learned Senior Counsel Sri D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, submitted that in both the provisions i.e., Section 444 as well as Section 321 of the Act, the appeal remedy is provided to the person who applies for the trade licence or the person who has violated the provisions of law and if such a person is aggrieved by any order passed by the Commissioner, the remedy by way of an appeal is provided to the applicant and not to a third party. Similarly in Section 321, the provision of appeal is provided to the person against whom a provisional order or confirmation order has been issued by the Commissioner. 11. On hearing the learned Senior Counsels for the petitioner, respondent No.7 and learned Counsel Sri K.N.Puttegowda, for the respondent-BBMP, this Court finds that there can be no justification for the action of the respondent-BBMP in issuing a trade licence without verifying the compliance of various provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, The Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, the Zonal Regulations and all other provisions of law, before granting the trade licence in favour of the seventh respondent. It was for the BBMP authorities to examine the application made by the seventh respondent, factually verifying whether there is compliance of the provisions of law before granting the trade licence in favour of the seventh respondent. During the course of the argument it was pointed out at the hands of the petitioner that a legal notice dated 05.09.2019 was also issued to the BBMP authorities that the seventh respondent has put up the structure without obtaining any sanction and put up the structure without leaving any setback which is causing lot of hindrance to the petitioner. Therefore the Authorities were required to take action. Such being the case, it was for the BBMP authorities to visit the spot, carry out a preliminary investigation and if it was found that the seventh respondent had put up the structure without obtaining the sanction and that the structure is in violation of the building byelaws, action should have been initiated under Section 321 of the Act. 12. In this regard, it is the fourth respondent-Assistant Executive Engineer of BBMP who is required to initiate action in accordance with Section 321 of the Act. Insofar as the trade licence is concerned, on the basis of the documents available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the seventh respondent cannot be permitted to carry on the activity unless and until he fulfills the requirement of law. 13. Therefore, the trade licence issued in favour of the seventh respondent is hereby quashed and set aside. The fourth respondent-Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP is directed to inspect the property in question and if he finds that any structure has been put up by the seventh respondent without obtaining sanction, action shall be initiated in accordance with Section 321(1) of the Act. Needless to observe that opportunity of hearing as contemplated under Section 321(1) (2) (3) shall be given to the seventh respondent. On the contrary, if the fourth respondent is of the opinion that the seventh respondent has put up any structure on the property in question in accordance with law, then he may issue an endorsement to the seventh respondent as well as the petitioner herein. On the contrary, if the fourth respondent is of the opinion that the seventh respondent has put up any structure on the property in question in accordance with law, then he may issue an endorsement to the seventh respondent as well as the petitioner herein. If such an endorsement is issued stating that the seventh respondent has put up structure which is in compliance with all the provisions of law as noticed hereinabove, the seventh respondent is permitted to make an application seeking grant of trade licence. In such case, the third respondent-Medical Officer of Health (Yelahanka Zone), Bengaluru, who is the competent authority to issue the trade licence may consider the same after securing information from the fourth respondent-Assistant Executive Engineer and after inspecting the spot and verifying to his satisfaction that the seventh respondent has complied with all the requirements of law. On such an application being made, it is the duty of the third respondent to verify as to whether such kind of activity is permissible under law, having regard to the provisions of the Zonal Regulations and the Master Plan. The petition is accordingly disposed of.