Writ Petition No. 8373 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14943 WP No. 8373 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8373 OF 2025 (EXCISE) BETWEEN: SHREE THIRUMALA COMFORTS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND FORM CL-7 LICENSEE, NO. 714/97C1, BHARATHI NAGAR (K.M. DODDI) C.A. KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT -571 43 REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHIVASHANKARA.T. S/O THIMME GOWDA K.T AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.K.BHAT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUDHA D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
Legal Reasoning
Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14943 WP No. 8373 of 2025 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER IN KARNATAKA, 2ND FLOOR, TTMC,'A' BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA -57 1 401 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXERCISE, MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA -57 1 401 5. THE INSPECT OF EXCISE MADDUR RANGE, MADDUR, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571428 …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. B. MANJUNATH, AGA) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO. 3 AND 4 TO ALLOW THE MODIFICATION OF THE BLUE PRINT AS PER ANNEXURE-Q SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT.28.12.2023, THROUGH 07.03.2024, 29.05.2024 05.11.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE- H, J, K AND L RESPECTIVELY. DIRECT DECLARING THAT ACTION ON THE PART OF THE RESPONDENTS NO.4 AND 5 IN CLOSING AND LOCKING THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE PETITIONER WITHOUT THERE BEING AN APPROPRIATE ORDER IS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY. REPRESENTATIONS THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14943 WP No. 8373 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner is issued with License in Form CL-7 under the Karnataka Excise [Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors] Rules 1968 [for short, 'the Excise Rules'] and it is operating the License from a property that abuts a State Highway. The petitioner has sought for directions to the third and fourth respondents [the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner and the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Excise] to permit modification in terms of Annexure-Q [a Building Plan with certain Modifications] considering the different representations filed in that regard, while also seeking for declaration that the action taken by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Excise and the Inspector of Excise to close a certain entrance in the property as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner's case is based on the plan endorsed in terms of Annexure-P while granting CL-7 License. It is seen from this plan that the building is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14943 WP No. 8373 of 2025 a corner plot; that the access to the ground floor premises through the reception is not from the Highway but a Cross-Road, that if the access to the Ground Floor is from the Highway and not from the Cross Road, the distance between the Highway and the Entrance to the Ground Floor will be vastly reduced. 3. Sri. G. K. Bhat, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that none of the conditions in Rule 5 of the Rules would apply to CL-7 License, and therefore, the action of closing the entrance to the Ground Floor from the front of the building is not justified. More importantly, the learned Senior counsel submits that if there is a violation, it would be open to the authorities to take action in terms of the Rules, especially when they have registered the first information [a FIR] with the jurisdictional police but they do not have the power to close the entrance and disrupt the operation of the license. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14943 WP No. 8373 of 2025 4. Sri. B. Manjunath, the learned Additional Government Advocate, relying upon the Statement of Objections and the annexures appended thereto, submits that every Excise License [including CL-7 License] is issued subject to the Government Order dated 09.10.1998; that this Government Order prohibits issuance of Excise license to a property which has an access within 23 metres from a State Highway or otherwise when it is within the limits of either City Corporation or the limits of other Local Authorities. 5. Sri. B. Manjunath submits that the concerned from the Public Works Department have confirmed that the subject construction does not violate the requirement of being at a distance of six metres from the edge of the Highway, but they have verified that, contrary to the plan that is endorsed [as per Annexure - P] at the time of issuing CL-7 License, the petitioner has opened access in the ground floor - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14943 WP No. 8373 of 2025 from the front of the Building reducing the access from beyond 23 metres to within the same. The learned Additional Government Advocate argues that this violates the terms of License, and therefore, action is taken only to close the opening, and he is categorical [relying upon certain invoices submitted by the petitioner] that operation of the License is not obstructed. 6. This Court must, at the first instance, observe that the respondents are categorical that they have not restricted the operation of the CL-7 License and the petitioner is at liberty to operate subject to compliances and that the only action that is taken is to close the unauthorized access created in the ground floor in the front. This Court must observe that Annexure-P, which is countersigned by the Excise Authorities, shows that the entrance to the ground floor is only from the Cross- road through the reception and there is no opening in the front from - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14943 WP No. 8373 of 2025 the HIghway. The petitioner has filed Plan as per Annexure Q for modification, and his representations are for early consideration of modification as per this plan. 7. This Court is of the considered opinion that if action is taken only to ensure that this opening, which is not seen in Annexure-P, is closed, there will be no reason for declaring the action as illegal. However, if the petitioner can show that there was no Opening contrary to Annexure–P or otherwise there is no deviation from Annexure - P, he must first file a representation and seek due consideration thereof. On the request for directions to consider the petitioner's representation for modification in terms of the plan produced as Annexure-Q, this Court must observe that such consideration cannot be kept pending and the authorities must communicate their decision at the earliest so that the petitioner, if he - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14943 WP No. 8373 of 2025 has a remedy as against such decision, can pursue the same. In the light of the afore, the following:
Decision
ORDER a. The petition stands disposed of directing the fourth respondent [the Deputy Commissioner of Excise] to consider the different representations and inform about the outcome to the petitioner by 20.05.2025 without waiting for a certified copy of this order. b. The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a representation for permission to open the closure of the entrance in the front even before the modification is considered and if the petitioner, in terms of the liberty reserved makes an application, the third respondent [the Deputy Commissioner] shall consider the same strictly subject to the Rules, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14943 WP No. 8373 of 2025 including any Circulars that may be issued. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB