Disposed

Sri v. Puttaviranaika v the Commissioner of Excise

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2018WP/44382/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka disposed of two PIL writ petitions challenging liquor licence grants due to vague objections. The court observed petitioner non-appearance, consecutive defaults in rectifying office objections, and lack of substantive grounds, ordering closure while reserving the right to pursue future issues.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings closed; petitions disposed of. Future issues reserved for examination.

Sri v Puttaviranaika Vs the Commissioner of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

W.P.Nos.44382-44383/2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^th DAY OF JUNE, 2018

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT

¶8

WRIT PETITION NOS.44382-44383/2017 (EXCISE-PIL)

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

SRI V PUTTAVIRANAIKA S/O H P VEERABADRANAIKA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.207, HUTTUR VILLAGE KOLLEGALA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA-571439

¶11

SRI MAHADEVASHETTY S/O VEERASHETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.204 HUTHUR VILLAGE KOLLEGALA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA-571439

¶12

... PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI RAMESH G P ADVOCATE [ABSENT])

¶14

AND

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE 2ND FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING ’A’ BLOCK, BMTC SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560027

¶16

¶17

W.P.Nos.44382-44383/2017

¶18

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT CHAMARAJANAGARA-571439

¶19

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER REVENUE CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT CHAMARAJANAGARA-571439

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI S H PRASHANTH, AGA)

¶22

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE VARIOUS REPRESENTATIONS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC INCLUDING THE REPRESENTATIONS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES-A, B AND C AS PROVIDED UNDER LAW.

¶23

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Nobody is present for the petitioners though the matter

¶26

has been called out twice over.

¶27

The petitions are placed on Board for non-compliance of

¶28

the office objection for the fifth time. It is noticed that on the last occasion i.e., 13.03.2018 too, none appeared for the petitioners, but one week’s time was granted to do the needful.

¶29

¶30

W.P.Nos.44382-44383/2017

¶31

Office objection having not been rectified and for consecutive defaults, it appears that the petitioners have lost interest in prosecuting this matter. Even otherwise, having examined the record, we find no reason to keep these petitions pending any further.

¶32

By way of these petitions, filed in the nature of public interest litigation, the petitioners seek to question the grant of liquor vending licence on vague assertions that the location of the outlet was at an alleged objectionable place. Nothing of the requisite specifications or particulars are forthcoming.

¶33

Learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submits that, as per his instructions, the licence has been granted strictly in accordance with the requirements of the Karnataka Excise (General Conditions) Rules, 1967.

¶34

In view of the above, the proceedings in these petitions stand closed.

¶35

The petitions stand disposed of.

¶36

¶37

W.P.Nos.44382-44383/2017

¶38

However, in the interest of justice, it is made clear that

¶39

in case of any other issue relating to the licence in question, if so arising, shall remain open to be examined in appropriate

¶40

proceedings, in accordance with law.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

bkv

Sri v. Puttaviranaika v the Commissioner of Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri v. Puttaviranaika v the Commissioner of Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri P Ranjan Rao Vs the Commissioner

Sri. D C Ramesh (Alias Raghu) Vs the State of Karnataka

E Lakshmi Vs Corporaton Bank

Sri Shivanna Vs the Govt of Karnataka

Palani Vs the Chief Secretary

Smt M K Irfana Khureshi Vs the Commissioner of Police