Karnataka High Court
Dr P K Govinda vs K.Chandrashekhar on 2 August, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT APPEAL NO.356/2022(EXCISE)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO.360/2022(EXCISE)
IN W.A. NO.356/2022:
BETWEEN:
DR P.K. GOVINDA
S/O LATE P. KRISHNA SWAMY NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT NO 5, N.M. LANE
NEAR COTTONPET POLICE STATION
BANGALORE - 560 053.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI G.K. SHIVA PRAKASH, ADV.)
AND:
1. K. SAMPOORNA PANDIYAN
W/O PANDIYAN
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.1/169
KUNDHARAPALLI
RAMAPURAM POST
KRISHNAGIRI
TAMILNADU - 635 115.
2. K. CHANDRASHEKHAR
S/O KRISHNA SWAMY NAIDU
2
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.10
NARASIMHA MESTRI GALLI
1ST CROSS, CHICKPET
BAMGA;PRE - 560 053.
3. K. MANJULA
W/O V. VENKAESH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.20
SRI BALAJI NIVAS
KUVEMPU ROAD, R.S. PALYA
MARUTHI SEVA NAGARA
KAMMANHLLI, BANGALORE - 560 033.
4. BHARATHI K
W/O NARAYAN SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 552
OPP SEETHARAMANJANEYA
RICE MILL, ARKESHWARA NAGARA
MANDYA - 571 403.
5. K. RAVIKUMAR
S/O KRISHNA SWAMY NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.5, N.M. LANE
NEAR COTTONPET POLICE STATION
COTTONPET, BANGALORE - 560 053.
6. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
2ND FLOOR, TTMC 'A' BLOCK
BMTC COMPLEX, SHANTHI NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 027.
7. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT (BUD-6)
BANGALORE - 560 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N. SHETTY, ADV., FOR C/R-2 TO R-4 & R-1 & R-5;
SRI VIJAY KUMAR A PATIL, A.G.A. FOR R-6 & R-7)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW
THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
3
DATED 11.03.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN WP NO.14282/2021 (EXCISE) CONNECTED WITH WP
NO.14335/2021 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE
WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5 AND
ETC.
IN W.A. NO.360/2022:
BETWEEN:
DR P.K. GOVINDA
S/O LATE P. KRISHNA SWAMY NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT NO 5, N.M. LANE
NEAR COTTONPET POLICE STATION
BANGALORE - 560 053.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI G.K. SHIVA PRAKASH, ADV.)
AND:
1. K. CHANDRASHEKHAR
S/O KRISHNA SWAMY NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.10
NARASIMHA MESTRI GALLI
1ST CROSS, CHICKPET
BAMGA;PRE - 560 053.
2. K. SAMPOORNA PANDIYAN
W/O PANDIYAN
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.1/169
KUNDHARAPALLI
RAMAPURAM POST
KRISHNAGIRI
TAMILNADU - 635 115.
3. K. MANJULA
W/O V. VENKAESH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.20
SRI BALAJI NIVAS
KUVEMPU ROAD, R.S. PALYA
MARUTHI SEVA NAGARA
KAMMANHLLI, BANGALORE - 560 033.
4
4. BHARATHI K
W/O NARAYAN SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 552
OPP SEETHARAMANJANEYA
RICE MILL, ARKESHWARA NAGARA
MANDYA - 571 403.
5. K. RAVIKUMAR
S/O KRISHNA SWAMY NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.5, N.M. LANE
NEAR COTTONPET POLICE STATION
COTTONPET, BANGALORE - 560 053.
6. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
2ND FLOOR, TTMC 'A' BLOCK
BMTC COMPLEX, SHANTHI NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 027.
7. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (EXCISE)
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT (BUD-6)
BANGALORE - 560 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N. SHETTY, ADV., FOR C/R-2 TO R-4 & R-1 & R-5;
SRI VIJAY KUMAR A PATIL, A.G.A. FOR R-6 & R-7)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.03.2022 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.14282/2021 (EXCISE)
CONNECTED WITH WP NO.14335/2021 AND FURTHER BE
PLEASED TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5 AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
5
JUDGMENT
These intra court appeals are filed challenging the
common order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the learned
Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.14282/2021 and
W.P.No.14335/2021.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
also perused the material available on record.
3. Brief facts that would be relevant for the
purpose of disposal of these appeals are:
The appellant and respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the
children of late P.Krishnaswamy Naidu, who was holding
two CL-9 licenses during his lifetime. P.Krishnaswamy
Naidu died on 03.03.2021 leaving behind four sons and
four daughters as his legal heirs. The appellant herein
who is the eldest son of late P.Krishnaswamy Naidu filed
an application before respondent No.6 for transfer of CL-
9 licenses, which were held by P.Krishnaswamy Naidu
contending that late P.Krishnaswamy Naidu had executed
a registered Will dated 16.07.2014 in his favour
bequeathing the rights in respect of two CL-9 licenses in
his favour. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 had opposed the said
application disputing the genuineness of the Will and
though respondent No.6 had issued prior approval for
transfer of licenses in favour of the appellant on certain
terms and conditions, respondent No.7 without taking the
same into consideration had proceeded to transfer the
licenses in favour of the appellant in exercise of his
power under Section 17-A of the Karnataka Excise
Licence (General Condition), Rules 1967. Respondent
no.7 had passed two separate orders dated 17.05.2021
and 07.05.2021. Being aggrieved by the said orders and
the orders dated 13.05.2021 and 03.05.2021 passed by
respondent No.6 vide which prior approval was given for
transfer of licenses in favour of the appellant, respondent
Nos.1 to 5 had approached this Court by filing
W.P.No.14282/2021 and W.P.No.14335/2021,
respectively. The said writ petitions were clubbed, heard
together and disposed of by a common order by the
learned Single Judge and being aggrieved by the same,
the appellant, who was respondent No.3 in the aforesaid
two writ petitions is before this Court in these appeals.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has
submitted that the Will executed by late Krishnaswamy
Naidu is a registered Will, and therefore, genuineness of
the same cannot be disputed. He submits that the
appellant will be put to serious hardship, if the licenses
are not transferred and renewed in his name and the
State would also loose its revenue.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.1 to 5 submits that the authorities under
the Excise Act cannot transfer the licenses on the basis of
a Will, which is in dispute. He submits that respondent
Nos.1 to 5 have already approached the competent Civil
Court by filing a comprehensive suit for partition and
other ancillary reliefs. He submits that the learned Single
Judge taking into consideration that the execution of the
Will is in dispute, has rightly relegated the parties to the
Civil Court to resolve their dispute.
6. We have carefully considered the arguments
addressed by both sides and also perused the material
available on record.
7. Undisputedly, the appellant and respondent
Nos.1 to 5 are the children of late Krishnaswamy Naidu,
who was the holder of CL-9 licenses. The appellant has
claimed absolute right over the said licenses and has
sought for transfer of the said licenses into his name
based on a registered Will allegedly executed by late Sri
Krishnaswamy Naidu in his favour. However, execution of
the said Will has been disputed by respondent Nos.1 to 5.
The relationship between the parties is not in dispute.
Respondent Nos.1 to 5 have raised objection before
respondent Nos.6 and 7 for transferring of CL-9 licenses
in favour of the appellant herein and they have disputed
the genuineness of the Will. Inspite of the same,
respondent No.7 has passed the order for transfer of CL-
9 licenses in favour of the appellant.
8. The learned Single Judge taking into
consideration that the execution of the Will in favour of
the appellant was in dispute has held that the licenses,
which stood in the name of late Krishnaswamy Naidu
cannot be transferred in favour of either of the parties,
who claim for transfer of the licenses, unless their rights
are adjudicated before a competent Civil Court. It is
under these circumstances, the learned Single Judge has
observed that till the contesting private parties get their
dispute resolved between themselves, the application
seeking for transfer of licenses is required to be kept in
abeyance and he has accordingly proceeded to quash the
order passed by respondent Nos.6 & 7, which were
impugned in the writ petitions, wherein CL-9 licenses
were ordered to be transferred in favour of the appellant.
9. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in
the said order passed by the learned Single Judge. Since
the parties are already before the competent Civil Court,
it is for them to adjudicate or resolve their dispute and
thereafter seek necessary reliefs before respondent Nos.6
and 7 as observed by the learned single Judge. Under
these circumstances we do not find any good ground to
entertain the appeals, accordingly, the same are
dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
NMS
