Writ Petition No. 6336 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15936 WP No. 6336 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6336 OF 2025 (EXCISE) BETWEEN: M/S. SURAPANA BOARDING AND LODGING A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, NO.5, TMC KHATA NO.2789/ 2691/2697/5, ATTHIBELE, ANEKAL ROAD, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 107. …PETITIONER BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER HANUMANTHAPPA YELLAPPA, S/O YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. (BY SRI. G.K. BHAT, SENIOR ADV. FOR SMT. SUDHA D., ADV.) AND: 1. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER IN KARNATAKA 2ND FLOOR, TTMC, 'A' BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU- 560 001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT (BUD -8) BENGALURU- 560 022.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH B., AGA) …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15936 WP No. 6336 of 2025 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 15.02.2025 IN NO.EXE/BUD-8/CL-7/33/VA-50/2024-25 AS PER ANNX-L. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a registered partnership firm has applied for Licence in CL-7 and is aggrieved by the Endorsement dated 15.02.2025 [Annexure-L] issued by the third respondent. The third respondent, in this Endorsement dated 15.02.2025, has recorded that a certain Naveen Kumar has filed objections opposing issuance of such Licence in favour of the petitioner, and in fact, the third respondent has listed in detail the objections. The third respondent has also referred to the jurisdictional Excise Sub Inspector’s Report. It remains indisputable that the Endorsement does not mention contra conditions for issuance of Licence but for the observation that there is Sericulture - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15936 WP No. 6336 of 2025 Department’s office within a distance of 80 meters from the proposed building. 2. The third respondent, instead of taking a final decision, or acting otherwise in terms of the Karnataka Excise Licences [General Conditions] Rules, 1967 [for short, the 1967 Rules], has recorded that the Objector has not furnished the details of the closure of the complaint lodged with the Lokayukta on the petitioner's earlier application, and therefore, he must receive guidance from the Excise Commissioner on the action to be taken. The third respondent has informed the petitioner that his application would be considered only on receipt of the Guidelines. 3. The respondents have filed their Statement of Objections in the present proceedings placing on record a set of documents, including a copy of the Partnership Deed and Lease Agreements executed in favour of the petitioner’s partners and the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15936 WP No. 6336 of 2025 photographs taken at the time of inspection by the Excise Sub-Inspector. In Paragraph-16 of the Statement, it is once again reiterated that because there is no information about closure of the complaint with the Lokayukta, the impugned Endorsement is issued. Of course, there is reference to the strict scrutiny test that must be applied in matters of granting Excise Licence. 4. Sri G.K. Bhat, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the existence of a Government office within a distance of 80 meters from the proposed building cannot by itself be a contra condition for issuance of License and it would be open to the Excise Commissioner to record reasons and grant prior approval for issuance of such Licence. The learned Senior Counsel emphasizes that the third respondent, instead of seeking guidelines because of a complaint purportedly filed with the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15936 WP No. 6336 of 2025 Lokayukta, should have sought for prior approval in terms of such provision. 5. The outcome in this petition must turn on the significance of the Rule 5 and the proviso thereto of the 1967 Rules. The relevant part of this Rule for the present purposes read as under: "5. Restriction in respect of location of shops (1) xxxx xxxx xxxx (2) The Deputy Commissioner of Excise shall after making such enquiry as he deems fit approve the premises of liquor shop so selected and thereafter the description of the premises of liquor shop shall be entered in the Licence to be issued: Provided that the Deputy Commissioner of Excise may, with the prior approval of the Excise Commissioner and for reasons to be recorded in writing, permit the location of any shop within a distance of 100 metres, but not less than 50 metres from the institutions, hospital, office or locality specified in sub-rule (1) within the City Municipality or City Corporation limits." - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15936 WP No. 6336 of 2025 6. Sri D. Manjunath, the learned Additional Government Advocate, does not dispute the power in the Excise Commissioner to grant prior approval for issuance of Excise Licence even if the proposed property is within 100 meters from a Government Building so long as it is beyond 50 meters from such office. However, Sri D. Manjunath submits that the third respondent has not rejected the application, and as such, the consideration of the petitioner's application is deferred and it is only because of the persistent complaint by the Objector. In rejoinder, Sri G.K. Bhat submits that the Objector is not a stranger but is related to the Lessor and there is personal vendetta in filing objections and creating hurdles for issuance of Licence. 7. Be these as it may, the question for consideration is: Should this Court permit the third respondent, notwithstanding the provisions as aforesaid, to wait for guidance from the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15936 WP No. 6336 of 2025 Excise Commissioner [the first respondent] only because a complaint is lodged with the Lokayukta? 8. This Court must opine that the object and purpose under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 is not to create impediments in the administration and governance but to ensure that there is efficacy and transparency, and mere filing of a complaint cannot be a reason not to exercise statutory powers. This Court must observe that the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Excise may issue licence even when there is a Government Office within 100 meters from the proposed building, but such permission must be with the prior approval of the Excise Commissioner. This Court must next observe that the Excise Commissioner cannot issue such prior approval for a lark, and it must be for reasons to be recorded in writing. 9. The Courts reiterate every now and then that the reasoning is the soul of every decision - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15936 WP No. 6336 of 2025 making, and this Court therefore opines that the Excise Commissioner must, acting upon the third respondent's Communication dated 12.02.2025 [which is referred to in the impugned Endorsement dated 15.02.2025] call for records, examine all details in its minutiae and record reasons on whether there must be prior approval, as is contemplated under Rule 5[2] proviso of the 1967 Rules. This Court also opines that this exercise by itself cannot warrant any censure or other proceedings, be it under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act or otherwise. In the light of the afore, the following
Decision
ORDER [a] The petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a certified copy of this order with the Excise Commissioner for consideration of grant of prior approval as is contemplated under Rule 5[2] of the 1967 Rules. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15936 WP No. 6336 of 2025 [b] The petitioner will be at liberty to file a copy within two [2] weeks, and the Excise Commissioner is called upon to consider and reason in writing whether there must be prior approval or not before 23.05.2025. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16