Karnataka High Court
Karunakar S/O. Neharu Kalal vs The Commissioner For Excise on 15 February, 2022
Bench: R Natarajpresided Byrnj
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.100609 OF 2022 (EXCISE)
BETWEEN:
KARUNAKAR S/O. NEHARU KALAL
AGE. 48 YEARS,
OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. TUMMINAKATTI,
TQ. RANEBENNUR,
DIST. HAVERI-581110
... PETITIONER
(BY SHRIYUTHS F.V. PATIL & U.G. KATTIMANI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR EXCISE
2ND FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING,
A BLOCK, BMTC, SHANTINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560004.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
HAVERI,
TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI-581110.
3. THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
HIREKERUR ZONE,
DIST. HAVERI-581110.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VINAYAK S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER/INTIMATION DATED 15.06.2020
:2:
BRG.NO.ECI/31/STALANTAR/IML/HAVERI/2018-19 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ALONG
WITH I.A., THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to
accept notice for respondents.
2. The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of
certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 15.06.2020 passed
by respondent No.1 (Annexure-D) and the consequent order
dated 28.06.2021 passed by respondent No.1. The petitioner has
also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the
respondent No.1 to grant permission to re-transfer the CL-9
license from the property bearing No. 1470 to the property
bearing No.235, 236 and 236/1 of Tumminakatti village,
Ranebennur taluk, Haveri district.
3. The petitioner claims that he was granted a license in
Form CL-9 to vend liquor at the premises bearing No. 235, 236
and 236/1 of Tumminakatti village which lay adjacent to the
State Highway. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, directing re-location of excise outlets lying adjacent to
National and State Highways, the petitioner shifted his license to
a property bearing No. 1470 in the same village and the license
stood renewed till the year 2021-22. Later the Hon'ble Supreme
Court modified its order and permitted the license holders to
seek re-transfer of the license to their original place where the
population of the village exceeded 5000. The petitioner claims
that the population of Tumminakatti village was more than 5000,
and therefore, he filed a representation dated 14.05.2019
seeking transfer of the license from the premises bearing
No.1470 to the property bearing No.235/1, 236 and 236/1 of
Tumminakatti village. The request of the petitioner for shifting
was recommended by the respondent No. 3 in terms of his report
dated 06.06.2019. The petitioner contends that there were
similar 38 files which were placed for consideration before the
respondent No. 1. In the meanwhile, the State Government
extended the period of consideration for shifting of such liquor
shops till 29.02.2020. The respondent No.1 instead of
considering the request of the petitioner, rejected the same on
the ground that the time prescribed for seeking transfer of the
license had already lapsed. The petitioner claims that respondent
No.1 did not intimate him about the rejection of his request.
4. The learned counsel invited attention of the Court to
an order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in similar
circumstances in W.P. No.104360 of 2021 and contends that the
petitioner may also be extended the same benefit.
5. The learned Additional Government Advocate
submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs
as the petitioner had not approached the concerned authorities in
time.
6. A perusal of the records produced along with the writ
petition discloses that the petitioner had approached the
respondent seeking shifting of the CL-9 license on 14.05.2019
and that the case of the petitioner was recommended on
06.06.2019 and a report of the same was sent to the respondent
No.1 by respondent No.2 on 06.06.2019. Therefore, the
respondent No.1 was bound to consider the same within the time
prescribed i.e., 29.02.2020 or within the extended period.
7. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is
allowed and the impugned orders dated 15.06.2020 and the
order dated 28.06.2021 passed by the respondent No.1 are liable
to be quashed. The respondent No.1 is directed to re-consider
the case of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this order.
8. Learned Additional Government Advocate is
permitted to file Memo of Appearance within 10 days.
Pending I.A., if any, does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
hnm
