ORDER : R.NATARAJ, J. IN WP NO.14469 OF 2025: The petitioner has challenged the notice bearing No. AY(C.V.R)/P.R/375/2022-23 dated 28.12.2022 vide Annexure-'F' issued by respondent No.3 by which the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why action should not be initiated to close down the commercial activities. 2. The petitioner claims that he is running commercial activity in premises bearing No. 149, 2 nd Main, 3 rd Stage, New Thippasandra, Bangalore, which earlier lay within the limits of City Municipal Council and thereafter was included in the limits of Municipal Corporation in the year 2002-2003. The petitioner had obtained a trade license from the Municipal Corporation in the year 2019-2020 and onwards which is valid upto 31.03.2030. Petitioner contends that the license is issued in accordance with the byelaws of Municipal Corporation and business is being run by the petitioner for several years. 3. He further claims that the Municipal Corporation has now issued the notice dated 28.12.2022 calling upon the petitioner to close down the shop immediately stating that business run by the petitioner is in contravention of a Notification dated 20.03.2015 issued by Department of Urban Development. It is claimed in the notice that the shop where the petitioner was conducting is within Ring No.2 of revised master plan 2015 and the width of the road in less than 40 feet and as per revised master plan 2015, no commercial activity is permissible in a premises that is alongside a road which is less than 40 feet wide. 4. The petitioner contends that the notice is issued pursuant to order passed in WP.No.3676/2008 to which, he was not a party. He claims that his is doing business in the premises even before the area came within the limits of BBMP and therefore, the revised master plan,2015 cannot be applied to him. The petitioner is therefore, before this Court, challenging the notice issued by respondent No.3. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above submissions and contended that the impugned notice is liable to be quashed. 6. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the notice is issued pursuant to a direction issued by this Court in WP No.3676/2008 and therefore the same cannot be assailed by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above submissions and contended that the impugned notice is liable to be quashed. 6. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the notice is issued pursuant to a direction issued by this Court in WP No.3676/2008 and therefore the same cannot be assailed by the petitioner. He contends that respondent No.3 has issued several such notices to various persons who are doing commercial activity in residential areas or in premises that abut a road which is less than 40 feet wide. 7. It appears that respondent No.3 had issued notice in question following the direction issued by this Court in WP No.3676/2008. If the petitioner has any justification, he was bound to reply to the said notice, he could not have rushed to this Court challenging the said notice issued by respondent No.3. In that view of the matter, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner in this Writ Petition and the notice issued by respondent cannot be quashed. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to reply to the notice within a period of two weeks. Respondent No.3, thereafter shall proceed in accordance with law. Until then, respondent No.3 shall not take any precipitative action. IN WP NO.14372 OF 2025: The petitioner has challenged the notice bearing No. AY(C.V.R)/P.R/31/2023-24 dated 01.09.2023 vide Annexure-'L' issued by respondent No.3 by which the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the action should not be initiated to close down the commercial activities. 2. The petitioner claims that he is running the commercial activity in premises bearing No. 234/A, 1 st Main, 5 th Cross, HAL 3 rd Stage, Bangalore, which earlier lay within the limits of City Municipal Council and thereafter was included in the limits of Municipal Corporation in the year 2002-2003. The petitioner had obtained trade license from the Municipal Corporation in the year 2019-2020 and onwards which is valid upto 31.03.2030. Petitioner contends that the license is issued in accordance with the byelaws of Municipal Corporation and business is run by the petitioner for several years. 3. The petitioner had obtained trade license from the Municipal Corporation in the year 2019-2020 and onwards which is valid upto 31.03.2030. Petitioner contends that the license is issued in accordance with the byelaws of Municipal Corporation and business is run by the petitioner for several years. 3. He claims that the Municipal Corporation has now issued a notice dated 28.12.2022 calling upon the petitioner to close down the shop immediately on the ground that business being run by the petitioner is in contravention of the Notification dated 20.03.2015 issued by Department of Urban Development. It was claimed in the notice that the shop where the petitioner was conducting business is within Ring No.2 of revised master plan, 2015 and the width of the road is less than 40 feet and as per revised master plan 2015, no commercial activity is permissible in a premises lying alongside a road which is less than 40 feet wide. 4. The petitioner contends that the notice is issued pursuant to order passed in WP.No.3676/2008 to which, he was not a party. He claims that his is doing business in the premises even before the area came within the limits of BBMP and therefore the revised master plan,2015 cannot be applied to him. The petitioner is therefore, before this Court, challenging the notice issued by respondent No.3. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above submissions and contended that the impugned notice is liable to be quashed. 6. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the notice is issued pursuant to a direction issued by this Court in WP No.3676/2008 and therefore the same cannot be assailed by the petitioner. He contends that respondent No.3 has issued several such notices to various persons who are doing commercial activity in residential areas or in premises that abut a road which is less than 40 feet wide. 7. It appears that respondent No.3 had issued notice in question following the direction issued by this Court in WP No.3676/2008. If the petitioner has any justification, he was bound to reply to the said notice, he could not have rushed to this Court challenging the said notice issued by respondent No.3. In that view of the matter, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner in this Writ Petition and the notice issued by respondent cannot be quashed. If the petitioner has any justification, he was bound to reply to the said notice, he could not have rushed to this Court challenging the said notice issued by respondent No.3. In that view of the matter, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner in this Writ Petition and the notice issued by respondent cannot be quashed. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to reply to the notice within a period of two weeks. Respondent No.3, thereafter shall proceed in accordance with law. Until then, respondent No.3 shall not take any precipitative action. IN WP NO.14384 OF 2025: The petitioner has challenged the notice bearing No. AY(C.V.R)/P.R/02/2024-25 dated 19.04.2025 vide Annexure-'B' issued by respondent No.3 by which the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the action should not be initiated to close down the commercial activities. 2. The petitioner claims that he is running the commercial activity in premises bearing No. 236, Ground Floor, 5 th Cross, New Thippasandra, Bangalore, which earlier lay within the limits of City Municipal Council and thereafter was included in the limits of Municipal Corporation in the year 2002-2003. The petitioner had obtained trade license from the Municipal Council in the year 2017-2018 and onwards which is valid upto 28.02.2018. Petitioner contends that the license is issued in accordance with the byelaws of Municipal Corporation and business is run by the petitioner for several years. 3. He claims that the Municipal Corporation has now issued a notice dated 19.04.2025 calling upon the petitioner to close down the shop immediately on the ground that business run by the petitioner is in contravention of a Notification dated 20.03.2015 issued by Department of Urban Development. It is claimed in the notice that the shop where the petitioner was conducting business is within Ring No.2 of revised master plan, 2015 and the width of the road is less than 40 feet and as per revised master plan 2015, no commercial activity is permissible in a premises lying alongside a road which is less than 40 feet wide. 4. The petitioner contends that the notice is issued pursuant to order passed in WP.No.3676/2008 to which, he was not a party. He claims that his is doing business in the premises even before the area came within the limits of BBMP and therefore the revised master plan,2015 cannot be applied to him. 4. The petitioner contends that the notice is issued pursuant to order passed in WP.No.3676/2008 to which, he was not a party. He claims that his is doing business in the premises even before the area came within the limits of BBMP and therefore the revised master plan,2015 cannot be applied to him. The petitioner is therefore, before this Court, challenging the notice issued by respondent No.3. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above submissions and contended that the impugned notice is liable to be quashed. 6. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the notice is issued pursuant to a direction issued by this Court in WP No.3676/2008 and therefore the same cannot be assailed by the petitioner. He contends that respondent No.3 has issued several such notices to various persons who are doing commercial activity in residential areas or in premises that abut a road which is less than 40 feet wide. 7. It appears that respondent No.3 had issued notice in question following the direction issued by this Court in WP No.3676/2008. If the petitioner has any justification, he was bound to reply to the said notice, he could not have rushed to this Court challenging the said notice issued by respondent No.3. In that view of the matter, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner in this Writ Petition and the notice issued by respondent cannot be quashed. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to reply to the notice within a period of two weeks. Respondent No.3, thereafter shall proceed in accordance with law. Until then, respondent No.3 shall not take any precipitative action. In view of disposal of this petition, IA No.1/2025 stands disposed of. IN WP NO.14393 OF 2025: The petitioner has challenged the notice bearing No.AY(C.V.R)/P.R/04/2023-24 dated 16.09.2023 vide Annexure-'C' issued by respondent No.3 by which the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why action should not be initiated to close down the commercial activities. 2. The petitioner claims that he is running the commercial activity in premises bearing No. 12, Ground Floor, 2 nd Main, 4 th Cross, New Thippasandra, Bengaluru, which earlier lay within the limits of City Municipal Council and thereafter was included in the limits of Municipal Corporation in the year 2002-2003. 2. The petitioner claims that he is running the commercial activity in premises bearing No. 12, Ground Floor, 2 nd Main, 4 th Cross, New Thippasandra, Bengaluru, which earlier lay within the limits of City Municipal Council and thereafter was included in the limits of Municipal Corporation in the year 2002-2003. The petitioner had obtained a trade license from the Municipal Corporation in the year 2022-2023 and onwards which is valid upto 28.02.2027. Petitioner contends that the license is issued in accordance with the byelaws of Municipal Corporation and business is run by the petitioner for several years. 3. He further claims that the Municipal Corporation has now issued a notice dated 16.09.2023 calling upon the petitioner to close down the shop immediately on the ground that business run by the petitioner is in contravention of a Notification dated 20.03.2015 issued by Department of Urban Development. It is claimed in the notice that the shop where the petitioner was conducting business is within Ring No.2 of revised master plan, 2015 and the width of the road is less than 40 feet and as per revised master plan 2015, no commercial activity is permissible in a premises lying alongside a road which is less than 40 feet wide. 4. The petitioner contends that the notice is issued pursuant to order passed in WP.No.3676/2008 to which, he was not a party. He claims that his is doing business in the premises even before the area came within the limits of BBMP and therefore the revised master plan,2015 cannot be applied to him. The petitioner is therefore, before this Court, challenging the notice issued by respondent No.3. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above submissions and contended that the impugned notice is liable to be quashed. 6. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the notice is issued pursuant to a direction issued by this Court in WP No.3676/2008 and therefore the same cannot be assailed by the petitioner. He contends that respondent No.3 has issued several such notices to various persons who are doing commercial activity in residential areas or in premises that abut a road which is less than 40 feet wide. 7. It appears that respondent No.3 had issued notice in question following the direction issued by this Court in WP No.3676/2008. He contends that respondent No.3 has issued several such notices to various persons who are doing commercial activity in residential areas or in premises that abut a road which is less than 40 feet wide. 7. It appears that respondent No.3 had issued notice in question following the direction issued by this Court in WP No.3676/2008. If the petitioner has any justification, he was bound to reply to the said notice, he could not have rushed to this Court challenging the said notice issued by respondent No.3. In that view of the matter, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner in this Writ Petition and the notice issued by respondent cannot be quashed. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to reply to the notice within a period of two weeks. Respondent No.3, thereafter shall proceed in accordance with law. Until then, respondent No.3 shall not take any precipitative action. In view of disposal of this petition, IA No.1/2025 stands disposed of. IN WP NO.14395 OF 2025: The petitioner has challenged the notice bearing No. AY(C.V.R)/P.R/25/2025-26 dated 19.04.2025 vide Annexure-'B' issued by respondent No.3 by which the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why action should not be initiated to close down the commercial activities. 2. The petitioner claims that he is running the commercial activity in premises bearing No. 333, Ground Floor, 2 nd Shop, 8 th Main, 5 th Cross, HAL III Stage, New Thippasandra, Bangalore, which earlier lay within the limits of City Municipal Council and thereafter was included in the limits of Municipal Corporation in the year 2002-2003. The petitioner had obtained a trade license from the Municipal Corporation in the year 2025-2026 and onwards which is valid upto 28.02.2026. Petitioner contends that the license is issued in accordance with the byelaws of Municipal Corporation and business is run by the petitioner for several years. 3. He further claims that the Municipal Corporation has now issued a notice dated 19.04.2025 calling upon the petitioner to close down the shop immediately on the ground that business being run by the petitioner is in contravention of a Notification dated 20.03.2015 issued by Department of Urban Development. 3. He further claims that the Municipal Corporation has now issued a notice dated 19.04.2025 calling upon the petitioner to close down the shop immediately on the ground that business being run by the petitioner is in contravention of a Notification dated 20.03.2015 issued by Department of Urban Development. It was claimed in the notice that the shop where the petitioner was conducting business is within Ring No.2 of revised master plan, 2015 and the width of the road is less than 40 feet and as per revised master plan 2015, no commercial activity is permissible in a premises lying alongside a road which is less than 40 feet wide. 4. The petitioner contends that the notice is issued pursuant to order passed in WP.No.3676/2008 to which, he was not a party. He claims that his is doing business in the premises even before the area came within the limits of BBMP and therefore the revised master plan,2015 cannot be applied to him. The petitioner is therefore, before this Court, challenging the notice issued by respondent No.3. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above submissions and contended that the impugned notice is liable to be quashed. 6. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the notice is issued pursuant to a direction issued by this Court in WP No.3676/2008 and therefore the same cannot be assailed by the petitioner. He contends that respondent No.3 has issued several such notices to various persons who are doing commercial activity in residential areas or in premises that abut a road which is less than 40 feet wide. 7. It appears that respondent No.3 had issued notice in question following the direction issued by this Court in WP No.3676/2008. If the petitioner has any justification, he was bound to reply to the said notice, he could not have rushed to this Court challenging the said notice issued by respondent No.3. In that view of the matter, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner in this Writ Petition and the notice issued by respondent cannot be quashed. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to reply to the notice within a period of two weeks. Respondent No.3, thereafter shall proceed in accordance with law. Until then, respondent No.3 shall not take any precipitative action. In view of disposal of petition, IA No.1/2025 stands disposed of. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to reply to the notice within a period of two weeks. Respondent No.3, thereafter shall proceed in accordance with law. Until then, respondent No.3 shall not take any precipitative action. In view of disposal of petition, IA No.1/2025 stands disposed of. In WP No.2659/2024: The petitioner has sought for writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to consider his representation dated 31.10.2023 and also direct respondent No.2 to consider his representation dated 19.06.2020. 2. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of flats bearing No. GF 001 and GF 002 in the apartment building named 'Alfa Diamond Plaza', situate at HAL III Stage, New Thippasandra, Bangalore. He claims that as per the sanctioned plan, the basement area is reserved for parking, but, it is used for commercial purposes. In that regard, he lodged a complaint before the Lokayuktha. The Lokayuktha after inspection, reported that parking space is used for illegal commercial activities. Respondent No.2 filed a status report dated 23.09.2019 before the Lokayuktha seeking two months time to clear the parking space. However, respondent No.2 did not take any steps to clear the parking space. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a representation dated 19.06.2020 to respondent No.2 to take action. Respondent No.2 failed to take action which compelled the petitioner to file representation dated 31.12.2023 with respondent No.1. Since the same are not considered, the petitioner is before this Court seeking direction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the aforesaid submissions and submits that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are bound to take action to restore the parking space in the basement area, but they have allowed commercial activity to be undertaken in the aforesaid apartment. 4. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that if reasonable time is given, respondent No.2 will take appropriate action. 5. In view of the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to take immediate action for consideration of representation of petitioner which shall be done within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. List this Writ Petition on 16.12.2025 for compliance.