Disposed

K. Lalitha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Feb 2021WP/1648/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed in public interest challenging a communication regarding liquor license suitability on agricultural land was disposed of. The court reserved liberty to appear before the authority to raise objections and stayed further orders.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to appear before the authority to raise objections; authority directed not to pass order until objection hearing.

K. Lalitha Vs the State of Karnataka — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

-: 1 :-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.1648/2021 (EXCISE-PIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

K. LALITHA

¶11

W/O. KESHAVAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.220, KANDIKERE ROAD, NEAR NANDILINGA MATHA, TELIGI, HARAPANAHALLI, DAVANAGERE - 583 137.

¶12

K. PAVITRA D/O. HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.78, TELIGI, HARAPANAHALLI, DAVANAGERE-583 137.

¶13

HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. PARASHURAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.219, TELIGI, HARAPANAHALLI, DAVANAGERE-583 137.

¶14

E. INDUMATHI

¶15

D/O. SESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT KHANDIGERE ROAD, RANGAPURE, BALLARI-583 137.

¶16

-: 2 :-

¶17

K. VASANTHA S/O. K. HONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT KHANDIGERE ROAD, TELIGI, DAVANAGERE-583 137. 6. H. BASAVARAJA S/O. PARASHURAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDENT OF TELIGI, HARAPANAHALLI, DAVANAGERE-583 137. 7. B. YUVARAJA S/O. B. SHIVARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDENT OF TELIGI, DAVANAGERE-583 137. 8. N. GIRISH S/O. NAGANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HARIHARA ROAD, TELIGI, DAVANAGERE-583 137. 9. E. LAKSHMAVVA D/O. DURUGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HARAPANAHALLI, TELIGI, DAVANAGERE-583 137. 10. K. MARUTHI S/O. K. PARASHARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KAPPERA ONI, TELIGI, DAVANAGERE-583 137.

¶18

K. MARUTHI S/O.K. KUBEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT KHANDIGERE ROAD, TELIGI, DAVANAGERE-583 137.

¶19

-: 3 :-

¶20

K. NAGAMMA D/O. HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT KHANDIGERE ROAD, TELIGI, DAVANAGERE-583 137.

¶21

K. MANJU S/O. K. KUBEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT KHANDIGERE ROAD, TELIGI, DAVANAGERE-583 137.

¶22

K. LATHA W/O. MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.48, TELIGI, HARAPANAHALLI, DAVANAGERE-583 137.

¶23

K. KARIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, D/O. RAMAPPA, RESIDENT OF KAPPERA ONI, TELIGI, DAVANAGERE-583 137.

¶24

E. RAJA

¶25

S/O. E. SHIVAJI, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT KHANDIGERE ROAD, TELIGI, DAVANAGERE-583 137.

¶26

E. GURUSWAMY

¶27

S/O. E. SHESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT KHANDIGERE ROAD, TELIGI, DAVANAGERE-583 137.

¶28

E. NAGAMMA

¶29

D/O. NAGENDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT KHANDIGERE ROAD,

¶30

-: 4 :-

¶31

TELIGI, DAVANAGERE-583 137.

¶32

E. SHESHAPPA

¶33

S/O. THIRUKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT KHANDIGERE ROAD, TELIGI, DAVANAGERE-583 137.

¶34

20. KESHAVAMURTHI

¶35

S/O. SHIVANANDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.220, KANDIKERE ROAD, NANHILINGA ROAD, HARAPANAHALLI, DAVANAGERE-583 137.

¶36

E. SARASWATHY

¶37

D/O. DURUGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HARAPANAHALLI, DAVANAGERE-583 137.

¶38

POORNANANDA BHARATHI SWAMY S/O. SIDDALINGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.216, KHANDIGERE ROAD, TELIGI,

¶39

DAVANAGERE-583 137.

¶40

K. NAGARAJ

¶41

S/O. K. PARASHRAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KAPPERA ONI, TELIGI, DAVANAGERE-583 137.

¶42

K. KUBEERAPPA

¶43

/O. HANUMAVVA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KHANDIGERE ROAD, TELIGI, DAVANAGERE-583 137,

¶44

E. VIJAYALAKSHMI

¶45

D/O. NAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶46

-: 5 :-

¶47

RESIDING AT KHANDIGERE ROAD, TELIGI, DAVANAGERE-583 137. 26. K. CHANNABASAPPA S/O. PARASHURAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.312, HARAPANAHALLI, TELIGI, DAVANAGERE-583 137. 27. K. NAGAMMA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, C/O. CHANNABASAPPA, KAPPERA ONI, TELIGI, DAVANAGERE-583 137. 28. E. KOTRESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O. E. PAKIRAPPA, RESIDENT OF HARIHARA ROAD, TELIGI, DAVANAGERE-583 137. 29. E. SHIVAKKA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, D/O. E. THIMMAPPA, RESIDENT OF HARIHARA ROAD, TELIGI, DAVANAGERE-583 137. 30. LATHA. M W/O. MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HARAPANAHALLI ROAD, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, TELIGI, DAVANAGERE-583 137. 31. MURALIDHARA. V NO.1274, 3RD CROSS, 6TH MAIN, BHARAT NAGARA II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 091. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRUTI C CHAGANTI, ADVOCATE)

¶48

-: 6 :-

¶49

AND:

¶50

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶51

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BALLARI DISTRICT, D.C. OFFICE, STATION ROAD, BALLARI-583 101.

¶52

THE COMMISSIONER EXCISE DEPARTMENT, NGO COLONY, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶53

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE 3RD FLOOR, BUDA COMPLEX, NEAR MURTHY CIRCLE, BALLARI-583 101.

¶54

THE MYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED 36, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶55

THE DISTRICT LIAISON OFFICER BALLARI DISTRICT, MYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, MAHALAXMI MANSION, 3RD FLOOR, DESAI CROSS, PINTRO ROAD, HUBLI-580 020. ... RESPONDENTS

¶56

(BY SMT. VANI H., AGA FOR R1 TO R4 R5 AND R6 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 08.02.2021) *****

¶57

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN

¶58

-: 7 :-

¶59

THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE LETTER BEARING NO.Kam/MAG/Ka.Su./226/2020-21 DATED 17.12.2020, PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE - A, ADDRESSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 TO RESPONDENT NO.4, FORWARDING THE APPLICATION MADE BY RESPONDENT NO.6 FOR THE GRANT OF CL(11-C) LICENSE. 2. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.2 TO REMOVE THE UNAUTHORIZED BUILDING CONSTRUCTED ON SY. NO.236/1 IN EXERCISE OF HIS POWERS AND PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES UNDER APPLICABLE LAWS. 3. PASS ANY OTHER ORDER(S)/DIRECTION(S) AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ETC.

¶60

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶61

O R D E R

¶62

The main grievance of the petitioners is with regard to consideration to be made by respondent No.4 pursuant to the communication dated 17/12/2020, issued to respondent No.2, by respondent No.3.

¶63

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suitability of the land for establishment of a liquor out-let (CL(11-C) licence) is to be determined by respondent No.2. That earlier, respondent No.4 had already issued an endorsement stating that Sy.No.236/1 is an agricultural land and therefore, the liquor out-let could not be established on the said land. That pursuant to Annexure - A/communication, there is a likelihood of respondent No.4 permitting the liquor out-let to be

¶64

-: 8 :-

¶65

established on Sy.No.236/1 and this is contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968 and the Karnataka Excise (Licenses General Conditions) Rules, 1967. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have assailed the communication of respondent No.2 issued to respondent No.4.

¶66

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the writ petition filed is premature as the departmental communication dated 17/12/2020 is assailed in this writ petition. This writ petition is stated to be filed in public interest even when no order has been passed by respondent No.4 pursuant to communication dated 17/12/2020. She further submitted that the petitioners have to wait until an order is made pursuant to communication dated 17/12/2020 and then to assail the adverse order made, if any. She therefore submitted that the writ petition may be dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioners to assail any adverse order to be made by respondent No.4 in future, pursuant to the communication dated 17/12/2020.

¶67

-: 9 :-

¶68

By way of reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners may be reserved liberty to appear before respondent No.4 and raise objections that they have with regard to the location of the liquor out-let on Sy.No.236/1 under the aforementioned Rules. She submitted that if an opportunity is given to the petitioners to raise their objections before respondent No.4, then respondent No.4 would be better assisted in passing an order in accordance with law on the basis of the communication dated 17/12/2020 (Annexure - A).

¶69

In the circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition, which is stated to be filed in public interest, by reserving liberty to the petitioners herein to appear before respondent No.4 and raise the objections that they have with regard to the location of the liquor out-let on Sy.No.236/1 in accordance with law.

¶70

It is needless to observe that if any such objections are raised by the petitioners, the same shall be considered by respondent No.4 and a speaking order shall be made thereon.

¶71

-: 10 :-

¶72

For the purpose of enabling the petitioners to appear before respondent No.4, we direct that they shall appear before the said Authority on 22/02/2021 at 3.00 p.m. Till then, respondent No.4 shall not pass any order on the communication dated 17/12/2020 assailed in this writ petition.

¶73

Learned counsel for the petitioners sought return of the certified copies of the original annexures filed in the writ petitions.

¶74

Registry to return the same to learned counsel

¶75

for the petitioners subject to filing the copies of the same for the purpose of the record.

¶76

Writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid

terms.

No costs.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

K. Lalitha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Lalitha 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri T Basavraju Vs Assistant Director

Mr. Justin Samson Vs Mrs. Anitha Krupa

Smt H R Latha Vs Sri H M Shivamurthy

Smt.Rathnamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Habib Khan Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Sa.Ra.Mahesh Vs the State of Karnataka