Karnataka High Court
Sri S Cheluvaraju vs The Commissioner Of Excise on 17 March, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. NO.921 OF 2021 (EXCISE)
IN
W.P.No.8654 OF 2020 (EXCISE)
BETWEEN:
SRI. S. CHELUVARAJU
S/O SINGREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/O. NO.23/1, 3RD MAIN, III CROSS
J S NAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT
BANGALORE - 560096.
... APPELLANT
(BY MR. PADMANABHA R, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
IN KARNTAKA, 2ND FLOOR
TTMC BUILDING, A BLOCK
BMTC, K.H. ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.
2. THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF EXCISE
BENGALURU CITY, K.H. ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.
3. SRI. M. PUTTASWAMY
AGED MAJOR
R/O. NO.509, BRAMHAPUTRA RIVER ROAD
2
BRUNDAVANA NAGAR
4TH MAIN, BENGALURU-560 019.
4. SMT. H.K. SUDHA RANI
PROPRIETOR OF SUDHA WINES
YARANDAHALLI, ANEKAL RANGE
ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562 106.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MRS. VANI H, AGA)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN
THE WRIT PETITION NO.8654/2020 DATED 23.06.2021 OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVELY PERMIT THE APPELLANT TO WITHDRAW THE
WRIT PETITION NO.8654/2020 WITH A LIBERTY TO APPROACH
APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 23.06.2021 PASSED IN WP.NO.8654/2020 IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Mr.Padmanabha R., learned counsel for the appellant.
Smt.Vani H., learned Additional Government Advocate
for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
This intra Court appeal has been filed against the order
dated 23.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge by
which the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been
dismissed.
2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are
that the appellant submitted an application for transfer of
license in favour of respondent No.3. The appellant
thereafter had submitted an application not to transfer the
license in favour of respondent No.3 on 11.06.2001.
However, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Bangalore
Urban Districts proceeded to transfer license in favour of
respondent No.3 on 16.08.2001 which was already issued in
favour of the appellant. The appellant admittedly had a
statutory remedy before the appropriate forum. However, he
did not avail of the same and after a period of 15 years,
approached the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission.
The Commissioner, by an order dated 08.02.2016, remitted
the matter.
3. Thereupon, the appellant filed an application in
W.P.No.53069/2016 which was disposed of by an order dated
19.04.2017. Thereafter, the Karnataka State Human Rights
Commission decided the representation by an order dated
28.06.2017 stating that the appropriate authority to
adjudicate the grievance of the appellant is the authority
under the Act / designated Court. The petitioner thereafter
filed a writ petition in the year 2020 seeking a writ of
certiorari for quashing the order dated 16.08.2001 by which
license was transferred in favour of respondent No.3 and
sought the relief of quashment of order dated 30.06.2017.
The learned Single Judge has held that the writ petition
suffers from delay and laches as no explanation has been
offered by the appellant for his inaction for a period from
2001 to 2015. It has further been held that the delay has
not been explained properly and the writ petition has been
filed after 15 years. The writ petition has been therefore
dismissed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant
at length. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
he be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to
file an appeal before the authority under the Act.
5. We have considered the submission made by the
learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is guilty of
delay and laches and in a writ petition which was filed in the
year 2020, has challenged the order transferring the excise
license which was passed on 16.08.2001. The inaction on
the part of the appellant as well as in view of the fact that
the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been
dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by an
order dated 23.06.2021, the right has accrued in favour of
the respondents, particularly private respondent No.4 which
cannot be taken away by permitting withdrawal of the writ
petition. Even otherwise, no explanation has been offered by
the appellant for inordinate delay in filing the writ petition.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any
merit in this appeal. The same is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
