Disposed

Meenakshamma, 75 Yrs v. State of Karnataka - by Its

Karnataka HC21 Jun 2016WP/189/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed seeking transfer of deceased husband's liquor license. High Court of Karnataka did not decide merits but disposed of the petition by directing the Excise Commissioner to consider the application after a hearing within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent Deputy Commissioner of Excise to decide the application for license transfer after a hearing within two months.

Meenakshamma, 75 Yrs Vs State of Karnataka - by Its — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this the 21^st day of June, 2016

¶3

Before

¶4

THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶5

Writ Petition 189 / 2016 (Excise)

¶6

Between

¶7

Meenakshamma, 75 yrs W/o late K G Mariyappa Ranganatha Nilaya Opp: Taluk Office KRS Agrahara, B M Road Kunigal Town, Tumkur Dist. Petitioner

¶8

(By Mr G K Bhat, Adv.)

¶9

And

¶10

1 State of Karnataka – by its Prl. Secretary, Finance Department Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore

¶11

2 Excise Commissioner in Karnataka II Floor, TTMC A Block BMTC Building, Shantinagar Bangalore 27

¶12

3 Deputy Commissioner Tumkur District

¶13

��

¶14

2/4

¶15

4 Deputy Commr. Of Excise Tumkur District Respondents

¶16

(By Mr T K Vedamurthy, AGA)

¶17

Writ Petition is filed under Art.226/227 of the Constitution praying for a direction striking down R 5A(3) of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian & Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1968, as per notification dated 24.6.2000 – Annexure K etc.

¶18

The Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, Court made the following:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Mr G K Bhat, Adv. For Petnr.

¶21

Mr T K Vedamurthy, AGA. For Respdts.

¶22

The only prayer made by the petitioner Meenakshamma, widow of

¶23

the original licensee late Mr K G Mariyappa in the present writ petition is

¶24

that the respondent Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur should consider her

¶25

application for transfer of license in favour of her deceased husband who

¶26

expired on 26.9.2010, in her name upon the death of the husband.

¶27

The application for renewal Annexure C which is not dated and in

¶28

vernacular, was explained to the Court, subject to verification by the

¶29

��

¶30

3/4

¶31

opposite counsel, purporting to be an application for transfer of license in

¶32

her favour. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr G K Bhat submitted

¶33

that the relevant Rules permit such renewal even after a lapse of long period of death of her husband and also the lapse of license itself way back in the year 1982-83 and therefore, the respondent should at least consider the application for renewal in accordance with law and pass

¶34

appropriate orders.

¶35

Having heard the learned counsel for parties, without going into the

¶36

merit of the claims of the petitioner, this Court considers it expedient to dispose of this writ petition only with a direction to the respondent Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Tumkur to decide the application of the petitioner in accordance with law after giving her a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The petitioner or her authorized representative may appear before the said authority, in the first instance, on 5^th July, 2016 and the said authority is expected to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the petitioner before the respondent authority.

¶37

��

¶38

4/4

¶39

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶40

Sd/Judge

¶41

Meenakshamma, 75 Yrs v. State of Karnataka - by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meenakshamma, 75 Yrs v. State of Karnataka - by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manas Bar and Restaurant Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Sri Rajarajeshwari Public School Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Muniraju Vs State of Karnataka

M v Dinesh Kumar Vs the Zilla Panchayat

A R Ravikumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Anil Lobo, 43 Yrs Vs State of Karnataka - by Its Chief Secretary