This court disposed of writ petitions seeking a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to consider objections to opening a liquor shop near a school/hospital. The court held the petition was premature as no license was granted.
Court declined to issue mandamus; held writ petition premature as no license was ever granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
��������������������������������������������
������������������� �����������������������
��������
����������������� �!"��#!�����$���%�!�
&'���(������������)��+������,�����-.����+������
/�01���2�
���3����
Maddur Taluk, Mandya Dist – 571428 …. Petitioners
(By Sri Pramod R, Adv.)
��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� �!��" � ����������������������������������������#$%�%&'�������(��)�+,��-.���/�$0,������,�
2/4
And
��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� �!��" � ����������������������������������������#$%�%&'�������(��)�+,��-.���/�$0,������,�
3/4
Koppa Hobli, Maddur Taluk Mandya Dist – 571428.
…. Respondents
(By Sri T.K. Vedamurthy, AGA for R1 -7)
Writ Petitions are filed under Art.226/227 of the Constitution praying to direct R-2 to consider the representation Dt:21.05.2016 at Annex-H & etc.
The Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, Court made the following:
ORDER
Mr Pramod R, Adv. For Petnr. Mr T K Vedamurthy, Adv. For Respdts.
the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya to consider the representation
filed by the petitioner not to permit the opening of a Bar & Liquor
shop at the place indicated in the representation as it is surrounded
by residential houses, school, hospital and temple and therefore, it
is an objectionable place as per R 5 of the Karnataka Excise (General
Conditions) Rules, 1967.
��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� �!��" � ����������������������������������������#$%�%&'�������(��)�+,��-.���/�$0,������,�
4/4
2 Sri T K Vedamurthy, learned counsel for the respondent
Department has fairly submitted that it goes without saying that the representation or objections, if any filed by the petitioner would be considered by the concerned Authority in accordance with the Rules. Otherwise, the present writ petition is premature
as no such license as yet been given by the concerned Authority.
for respondent Department, this Court is not inclined to issue any mandamus/direction to the respondent Department and it is expected of the said Authority to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with the Rules.
Sd/Judge
An
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to issue a mandamus directing the Deputy Commissioner to consider a representation against opening a liquor shop due to proximity to residential/hospital/school.
Whether the writ petition is premature when no license has yet been granted.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K.L. Kemparaju
Madhusudhan K.G
Shivaramu
Ramesh B.M
M.V. Ashoka
The Secretary Department of Excise, Govt. of Karnataka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
