Dismissed

Smt.Yamuna W/O. Laxman Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2021WP/147392/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged recommendation to grant liquor license to a State-owned company as violative of land distance rules. Court held Rule 12 not applicable to State-owned companies and accepted argument that lack of alternative road did not make establishment illegal under distance rules. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of recommendation dated 12.2.2020 and endorsement dated 6.7.2020 rejected.

Smt.Yamuna W/O. Laxman Naik Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.147392/2020 (EXCISE)

¶7

Between

¶8

Smt.Yamuna w/o Laxman Naik Age 59 years, Occ: Household work R/o Haladakatta, Siddapur Tq: Siddapur, Dist: Uttara Kannada-581329. ...Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri Girish A Yadwad, Advocate)

¶10

A n d

¶11

The State of Karnataka

¶12

By its Secretary Department of Excise Multi Storied Building Bengaluru-560001.

¶13

The Commissioner Department of Excise 2^nd Floor, TTMC Terminal Bus Stand, Shanthinagar Bengaluru-560027.

¶14

The Deputy Commissioner Excise, Uttara Kannada District Karwar-581301.

¶15

¶16

The Excise Superintendent Sirsi, Siri, Dist:Uttara Kananda - 581 401.

¶17

The Mysore Sales International Limited (MSIL), State owned Company, registered under the Companies Act, represented by its Managing Director, MSIL House, No.36 Cunningham Road, Bengaluru-560052.

¶18

The District Liaison Officer Mysore Sales International Limited Uttara Kannada District, Karwar-581301.

¶19

Krishna s/o Govind Naik Age Major, Occ: Business R/o Building No.19-502-39 Ward No.14, Haladakatta Siddapur, Tq: Siddapur Dist:Uttara Kannada-581329.

¶20

The Excise Inspector, Sirsi Sirsi, Uttar Kannada. ... Respondents

¶21

(By Sri Vinayak Kulkarni, AGA for R1 – R4, Sri Mrutyunjay S Hallikeri, Advocate for R5, R6 & R7 - served)

¶22

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the recommendation letter bearing No.EXE/IML/CL-11C/35/2017-18 dated 12.2.2020 issued by the respondent No.8 vide Annexure-D and etc.

¶23

This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing in `B’ group this day, the Court passed the following:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the recommendation dated 12.2.2020 made by respondent No.8

¶26

¶27

vide Annexure-D on the ground that the said recommendation is in violation of Rule 12 of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968 (for short `Rules’). Admittedly, the 8^th respondent by impugned recommendation recommended with the competent Authority so as to grant CL(11-C) license to the 5^th respondent, which is State owned company incorporated under the Companies Act. This Court has already taken a view that CL(11-C) license can be granted without reference to Rule 12 of the Rules to State owned companies. Since Rule 12 of the Rules is not applicable, the prayer for quashing the recommendation dated 12.2.2020 requires to be rejected.

¶28

Petitioner has also challenged the endorsement dated 6.7.2020 issued by the 8^th respondent vide Annexure-F wherein the objection filed by the petitioner and other residents of the village for dropping the proposal to establish liquor outlet in favour of the 5^th respondent on the ground that the establishment is situated within 220 meters from the State Highway road and the same is in violation of Rule 5 of the

¶29

¶30

Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an alternative road is not provided and denotified stretch is in usage of public and as such, the recommendation made by the concerned Authority to grant CL-(11C) licence in favour of the 5^th respondent is in violation of Rules of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967. Admittedly, there is no alternative road provided to the villagers. However, the same does not violate the said Rules. Hence, the establishment of liquor outlet cannot be said to be illegal under Rule 5 of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the proposal sent by the concerned Authority to grant CL-(11-C) of the Rules. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

bkm

Smt.Yamuna W/O. Laxman Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Yamuna W/O. Laxman Naik v. the State of Karnataka

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

G Malleshi @ Malleshappa S/O. Rangappa Vs the Divisional Controller

M.L. Gani Vs the Government of Karnataka

Smt.Drakshyani Vs the State of Karnataka

Ganapati Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sadashiv S/O. Hanamappa Pujar Vs the State of Karnataka

Krishna Shakar Bhat Pujar Vs Joint Director of Land Records