Dismissed

Sri M R Thilak Prasad v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2021WP/1860/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging a liquor shop licence granted to Mysore Sales International Limited. After reviewing representations from petitioners regarding nearby educational institutions and replies from the State, the Court found no violation of statutory rules and allowed the licence to stand.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of and the licence granted in favour of M/s. Mysore Sales International Limited is allowed to remain in force.

Sri M R Thilak Prasad Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.1860/2021 (EXCISE)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI M R THILAK PRASAD, S/O M C RAJSHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT SIRGUNDA, MUGTHIHALLI, CHIKMAGALORE-577133.

¶11

SRI G A HARISH, S/O AJJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT GOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKMAGALORE-577133. …PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI SATHISHA D.J, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶15

THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER

¶16

¶17

IN KARNATAKA, 2ND FLOOR, TTMC A BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027.

¶18

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKAMAGALORE DISTRICT, CHIKAMAGALORE-577133.

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, CHIKAMAGALORE DISTRICT, CHIKAMAGALORE-577133.

¶20

THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, CHIKAMAGALORE DIVISION, CHIKAMAGALORE-577133.

¶21

MYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MSIL HOUSE, CUNNINGHAM ROAD,

¶22

BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI C.M POONACHA, AGA FOR R1-R5 SRI K.N.PHANIDRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR M.V.VEDAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶24

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1.ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT NO.EXE/IML/CKM/CL-11(c)/80/2020-21 DATED 14/12/2020 ISSUED BY THE 4^TH RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-G.

¶26

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The present PIL has been filed by petitioners saying that they are residents of Chikamagalore and they are aggrieved by grant of licence in Form CL-11 (c) in respect of liquor shop in favour of Mysore Sales International Limited (a Company under the control of State of Karnataka).

¶30

It has been contended in the writ petition that the respondent No.6 submitted an application for grant of licence to establish a liquor shop in Form CL-11(c) at Maruthinagara, Chikamagalore and representations were submitted by the petitioners stating that there are educational institutions in the locality and one infant Jesus Church is also situated near the proposed site. It is also been stated that in case if shop is opened, lot of food stalls will be started around the liquor shop and there will be chances of throwing the empty bottles in the public place which will create public nuisance in the locality and will cause mental agony for the local people. There are also other grounds raised in the present writ petition.

¶31

¶32

A detailed reply has been filed by the State Government and it has been stated in the reply that the present PIL is filed with an ulterior oblique motive and false averments have been made stating that hospital, educational institutions and church are situated within 100 meters from the proposed liquor outlet. It has been stated that after conducting proper enquiry in the presence of local residents who have expressed that they don’t have any objection in the matter of grant of CL-11(c) licence in favour of respondent No.6, a place was identified and the report has also been filed along with the reply.

¶33

This Court has carefully gone through the report filed in the matter and it does not reveal violation of any statutory provision of law in the matter of establishment of liquor shop. Reply has also been filed by respondent No.6 - beneficiary in the matter and it has been stated that in the case of M/s. Khoday Distilleries Ltd., etc., vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in AIR 1996 SC 911 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld sub Rule 11-C of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968.

¶34

¶35

The respondent No.5 is a State owned Company and after observing all formalities, the liquor shop has been established. There is no rejoinder to the written statement filed by the State Government and therefore in the considered opinion of this Court, keeping in view the detailed reply filed by State Government as well as respondent No.6 as no violation of the Rules has been pointed out, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the licence granted in favour of M/s. Mysore Sales International Limited. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶36

The documents in Kannada were explained in English by the learned Senior counsel Sri K N Phaneendra to this Court.

¶37

No order as to costs.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

ykl

Sri M R Thilak Prasad v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M R Thilak Prasad 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Karnataka Vs Sri a K Ramesh

State of Karnataka Vs Prof K Lakshmanappa

Mani Rama Murthy Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Anitha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Basavaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

The Secretary, Vs R.P. Sushma