Dismissed

Sri Shankar a Kotian v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2021WP/9393/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Public Interest Litigation sought to quash No Objection Letters issued by Excise Department officials to permit the establishment of a liquor shop in Marguru village. The Court found the relief infructuous as the landowner declined to lease premises and the proposal had been dropped.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissing as it has become infructuous; interlocutory application disposed of; No Objection Letters not quashed due to lack of procedural history.

Sri Shankar a Kotian Vs State of Karnataka — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.9393 OF 2021 (EXCISE-PIL)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI SHANKAR A KOTIAN S/O ANNI POOJARY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT MARUTHI PRASAD MAROORU POST AND VILLAGE MOODABIDRE TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA-574227

¶10

BADRUDDEEN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O MAAMBA BYARI R/AT DARKAS HOUSE MAROORU POST AND VILLAGE MOODABIDRE TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA-574227

¶11

SHAMBU N SHETTY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O NARAYANA SHETTY R/AT MAROORU GUTHU HOUSE MAROORU POST AND VILLAGE MOODABIDRE TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA-574227

¶12

SARASVATHI SHETTY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O NAVEEN SHETTY R/AT BADOTTU HOUSE MAROORU POST AND VILLAGE MOODABIDRE TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA 574227

¶13

¶14

SHEKARA PARAVA S/O ALTE KORAYA PARAVA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT # 19/3 DHARKAS HOUSE MAROORU POST AND VILLAGE MOODABIDRE TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA-574227

¶15

DOGRA HARIJANA S/O LATE KINNIGA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS MAROORU POST AND VILLAGE MOODABIDRE TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA-574227

¶16

YAKOOB MANON S/O ABDUL RAHIMAN AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS SADIYA MANZIL MAROORU POST AND VILLAGE MOODABIDRE TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA-574227

¶17

VISHWANATH SHETTY S/O LATE JANARDHAN SHETTY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS MAROORU POST AND VILLAGE MOODABIDRE TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA-574227

¶18

DIVYA PEREIRA W/O LATE ARUN PEREIRA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT VAILANKANI COMPOUND MAROORU POST AND VILLAGE MOODABIDRE TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA 574 227

¶19

... PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI RAJASHEKAR S, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE

¶23

M.S. BUILDING

¶24

¶25

DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560 001

¶26

REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶27

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶28

D.K. DISTRICT

¶29

D.C. OFFICE, MANGALURU

¶30

D.K. DISTRICT-575008

¶31

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE MANGALURU

¶32

D.K DISTRICT-575001

¶33

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE MANGALURU SUB-DIVSION NO.2 MOODABIDRI TALUK

¶34

D.K. DISTRICT

¶35

MANGALURU-574227

¶36

THE EXCISE INSPECTOR O/O EXCISE INSPECTOR MANGALURU EAST REGION-2 MAGHA MALA BUILDING

¶37

NEAR MARKET, MOODABIDRI DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574227

¶38

MYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LTD MANGALURU BRANCH

¶39

NO. 408 MAHENDRA ARCADE, 3^RD FLOOR KUDMUL RANGA RAO ROAD KARANGALPADY

¶40

MANGALURU-575003

¶41

TOWN MUNICIPALITY MOODABIDRI

¶42

MOODABIDRI TALUK D.K. DISTRICT-574227

¶43

REP BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER

¶44

TAHSILDAR MOODABIDRI TALUK D.K. DISTRICT-574227

¶45

... RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SRI S.RAJASHEKARA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5 AND R8; R6 AND R7 ARE SERVED)

¶47

¶48

¶49

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NO OBJECTION LETTER DATED 16.01.2021 AND THE LETTER DATED 16.01.2021 ADDRESSED BY THE R-5 AND 4 TO THE R-3 VIDE ANNEX-A AND B AND ETC.,

¶50

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARINGINTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THIS DAY, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J. MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

The captioned writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶53

"a) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the No Objection letter dated 16.01.2021 vide No.MER/2/28/IML/CL-11C/2020-21 and the letter dated 16.01.2021 vide No. MER/2/28/IML/CL-11C/2020-21 addressed by the 5^th respondent and 4^th respondent to the 3^rd respondent vide Annexure-A and B.

¶54

b) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶55

The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.6 is intending to establish a liquor shop at marooru village. The petitioner who belongs to marooru village strongly opposed for the establishment of the liquor shop at the aforesaid village. The present petition is filed before this Court on account of inaction on the part of

¶56

¶57

official respondents and also on account of issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' to respondent No.6.

¶58

On receipt of notice, learned Additional Government Advocate has filed statement of objections. Paragraph 2 of the statement of objections reads as follows:-

¶59

"It is submitted that the aforesaid reliefs have become infructuous for the reason that the proposal for grant of MSIL licence at Moodumarnadu Village was rejected as the proposed building land was not converted for commercial purpose. Subsequently, the 6^th respondent requested transfer of the place for grant of CL-11C license to MSIL from Moodumarnadu Village to Marooru Village. The villagers at Marooru Village have objected for the same and in the light which, owner of the premises who had intended to let out his premises for setting up MSIL unit has declined to let out his premises for setting up MSIL unit. In the light of this development the question of setting up MSIL unit at Marooru Village is dropped. As such, relief sought in the writ petition has become infructuous and as such, the present writ petition (PIL) may kindly be dismissed, in the interests of justice."

¶60

On perusal of paragraph 2 of the statement of objections, it is evident that the land lord who had initially agreed to lease his premises has declined to let out his premises for setting up of Mysore Sales International Limited (MSIL unit). In this background, setting up of MSIL

¶61

¶62

unit at Marooru village is dropped. Therefore, placing reliance on paragraph 2 of the statement of objections, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the present petition does not survive for consideration.

¶63

Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to the said submission.

¶64

The submission of learned Additional

¶65

Government Advocate is taken on record.

¶66

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as

¶67

infructuous.

¶68

The pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

KPS

Sri Shankar a Kotian v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shankar a Kotian v. 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

H Lokesh Vs the Director

Shivakumar K G Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Mahadevamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Leela Vs Bank of Baroda

Sri Shabarish C Vs the Managing Director

Sayed Sarwar Basha Makandar Vs Karnataka State Board of Wakfs