[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shri Jayaram Sheena Shetty vs The Government Of Karnataka on 6 February, 2026

                                                    -1-
                                                                   NC: 2026:KHC-D:1721
                                                              WP No. 100830 of 2026


                        HC-KAR



                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
                                 DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026
                                                  BEFORE
                                  THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 100830 OF 2026 (EXCISE)

                       BETWEEN:

                       SHRI. JAYARAM SHEENA SHETTY
                       AGE: 84 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
                       R/O. RAIBAG, TQ: RAIBAG,
                       DIST: BELAGAVI-591 317.
                                                                           ...PETITIONER
                       (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S.BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)

                       AND:

                       1.   THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
                            DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE,
                            VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001,
                            REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

                       2.   DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI
                            DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
                            TQ. AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590 001.

                       3.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
MANJANNA                    DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE,
E
                            2-SAI PLAZA, II FLOOR, KAVATAGIMATH NAGAR,
Digitally signed by
MANJANNA E
                            DIST: BELAGAVI (NORTH)-590 001.
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2026.02.06
16:22:41 +0530
                       4.   INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
                            RAIBAG RANGE, RAIBAG,
                            TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590 001.
                                                                         ...RESPONDENTS
                       (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, AGA)

                            THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER WHEREFORE IN THE
                       LIGHT OF THE ABOVE THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO
                       ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORAIR QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER
                       DATED 31.12.2026 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 BEARING
                       NO.DCE/BGM(N)/DTCR/BLC/549/2025-26 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND
                       ETC.
                                   -2-
                                                 NC: 2026:KHC-D:1721
                                              WP No. 100830 of 2026


HC-KAR



      THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:     THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

                           ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to

quash the order passed by respondent No.2 dated

31.12.2026 (Annexure-A), whereby CL-9 licence of the

petitioner has been suspended for a period of 90 days.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate

appearing for respondents-State 2.

3. The petitioner is the holder of CL-9 license issued

by respondent No.2- the Deputy Commissioner to sell

Indian Manufactured Liquor and Foreign Liquor in the

premises that is licensed at TMC No.1910/2419, Jalalpur

road, Raibagh. Respondent No.4 has initiated criminal

proceedings against the petitioner by registering the First

Information Report (FIR) alleging commission of offences

punishable under Sections 36 and 36(1)(g) of the

Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 ("the Act, 1965" for short) and

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1721

HC-KAR

Rule 10 of the Karnataka Excise (General Conditions of

Licence) Rules, 1967.

4. The allegation in the FIR is that, when an adult

consumer visited the petitioner's bar along with a minor

child, and allegedly caused the minor to consume liquor,

which was recorded and circulated on social media.

Pursuant to the said video becoming viral, respondent No.4

inspected the premises and verified the CCTV footage of the

relevant day i.e., 26.12.2025. It is stated that CCTV

footage indicates that the adult entered the premises with

the minor child at about 06.35 p.m., from the rear side of

the petitioner's premises, took the minor child to a non-

permit room where consumption of alcohol is prohibited and

existed the premises along with the minor child at about

6.57 p.m.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,

although the CCTV footage was verified by respondent

No.4, proceedings were nevertheless initiated under Section

36(1)(g) of the Act, 1965, followed by issuance of a show

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1721

HC-KAR

cause notice. The petitioner submitted a reply to the said

notice, however, without properly considering the reply and

the material on record, the licence of the petitioner came to

be suspended for a period 90 days, which according to the

petitioner is in an arbitrary manner.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Government

Advocate appearing for the respondents-State submits that,

an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal is available

under Section 61(2) of the Act, 1965 and therefore, the writ

petition is not maintainable.

7. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that, although an alternative remedy is available,

impugned action suffers from violations of principles of

natural justice and therefore the writ petition is

maintainable under the exception carved out.

8. This Court has carefully considered the rival

submissions and perused the material on record.

9. In the impugned order, respondent No.2 at

paragraph No.2 has observed as under:

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1721

HC-KAR

"aPÀÌ ªÀÄUÀÄ«£ÉÆA¢UÉ §AzÀ ªÀAiÀÄ¸ÀÌ ªÀåQÛUÉ ªÀÄzÀå ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, D ªÀåQÛ ªÀÄzÀåªÀ£ÄÀ ß ªÀÄUÀÄ«UÉ PÀÄr¹gÀÄªÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ ¸ÁªÀiÁfPÀ eÁ®vÁtUÀ¼À°è «rAiÉÆÃ ©üvÛÀgÀªÁUÀÄwÛgÄÀ ªÀ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ C§PÁj PÁAiÉÄÝ 1965 gÀ PÀ®A 36 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 36 (1) (f) gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ zÀAqÀ£ÁºÀð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²PÁëºÀð C¥ÀgÁzsÀªÁVgÀÄªÀzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÅ UÀA©üÃgÀ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÁVzÀÄÝ. ¸À£ßÀ zÀÄzÁgÀgÀ «£ÀAw ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß E¯ÁSÁªÀw¬ÄAzÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ EvÀåxÀð¥Àr¸À®Ä CªÀPÁ±À EgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. DzÀÝjAzÀ ¸À£ÀßzÀÄzÁgÀgÄÀ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ ¸ÀªÄÀ eÁ¬Ä¶AiÀÄ£ÀÄß M¥Àà®Ä ¸ÁzsÀå«®è. ¸ÀzÀj ¸À£ÀßzÀ£ÀÄß PÀ£ÁðlPÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ PÀ®A 29(1)(©) gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛUÉÆ½¸À®Ä CxÀªÁ gÀzÄÀ ÝUÆ É ½¸À®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«gÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÁUÀÆ C§PÁj ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ. gÁAiÀÄ¨sÁUÀ ªÀ®AiÀÄ, C§PÁj G¥À C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÄÀ , CxÀtÂ G¥À «¨sÁUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C§PÁj G¥À DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÄÀ , ¨É¼ÀUÁ« GvÀÛgÀ f¯Éè aPÉÆÌÃr gÀªÀgÀ ²¥sÁgÀ¹ì£À ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ DzÉÃ±À."

10. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that,

while reference is made to the CCTV footage, the order does

not record any findings as to whether the minor child

consumed liquor in the premises or whether the petitioner

permitted the minor to enter the prohibited area. No

reasons are forthcoming on this crucial aspect.

11. Be that as it may, an alternative remedy is

available and this Court deemed it appropriate to relegate

the petitioner to the appropriate appellate authority.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1721

HC-KAR

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also

brought to the notice of this Court that in certain similar

placed cases, even where allegations were stated to be

graver, the suspension imposed was for a shorter duration.

13. However, it is well settled that a negative benefit

is extended in another case cannot be claimed as a matter

of right. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this

Court pass the following order:

ORDER

i. The writ petition is disposed of.

ii. The petitioner is granted liberty to approach the appropriate appellate authority under Section 61(2) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 by filing an appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of this order.

iii. In the event of such an appeal being filed and an application for stay for suspension, the Excise Commissioner shall consider the interim application filed by the petitioner

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1721

HC-KAR

seeking stay of the suspension within a period of two weeks thereafter.

iv. The CL-9 licence of the petitioner has already remained under suspension for a period of one week pursuant to the impugned order, hence in the peculiar facts and circumstances, till such consideration of the interim application before the Appellate Authority, operation and execution of the impugned order of suspension dated 31.12.2026 (Annexure-A) shall be kept in abeyance.

v. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not violate any of the conditions of CL-9 license.

vi. It is farther clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all the contentions of both the parties are kept open to be urged before the Appellate Authority.