Disposed

M/S Kay Yess Resorts v. the Commissioner of Excise

Karnataka HC27 Jun 2022WP/2563/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the non-renewal of a liquor license. It directed the Commissioner of Excise to consider the petitioner's renewal application in light of a recent approval by the Regional Commissioner.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Commissioner of Excise to consider the petitioner's application for CL-7 license renewal in light of the Regional Commissioner's order dated 13.04.2022 within 6 weeks.

M/S Kay Yess Resorts Vs the Commissioner… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.2563 OF 2022 (EXCISE)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

M/S KAY YESS RESORTS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, OFFICE AT SY.NO.23 AND 24 J.NO.18, KADEGADDE VILLAGE, ANTHARASANTHE HOBLI, H.D.KOTE TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT, REPTD BY PARTNER, SRI.B.NARAYANA S/O LATE SATHYAPPA AGED 43 YEARS

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.P.K.PONNANNA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SMT.LEELA.P.DEVADIGA, ADVOCT)

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE 2ND FLOOR, TTMC A BLOCK BMTC COMPLEX, SHANTH NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE-570 001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE MYSORE-570 001.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.JYOTHI BHAT, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 )

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO COMPLY THE ORDER DTD 18.12.2019, PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN W.P.NO.52484/2019 VIDE ANNX-R AND PASS ORDERS ACCORDINGLY, IN TERMS OF THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THIS HONBLE COURT AND ETC.,

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner was granted with CL-7 license for serving liquor in the hotel for the period 2012-13 and it was renewed till 2014-15. Thereafter, CL-7 license granted in favour of the petitioner was cancelled stating that the hotel/resort is situated in a eco sensitive zone which is in violation of the Wild Life Protection Act against which the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondentCommissioner.

¶21

The first respondent-Commissioner set aside

¶22

the order passed by the 2nd respondent and remitted the matter to the 2nd respondent for reconsideration afresh. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ in WP No.2484/19

¶23

¶24

challenging the order dated 17.10.2019 and sought for renewal of CL-7 licence. The co-ordinate Bench by order dated 18.12.2019 directed the 2nd respondent to consider the matter afresh and a report to be submitted by the Director of Conservation of Forest to the 2nd respondent. The Director of Conservation of Forest submitted the report stating that petitioner's business falls in the Eco Sensitive Zone. However, the 2nd respondent has not renewed the license CL-7 in favour of the petitioner. Hence this petition.

¶25

Sri A S Ponnanna, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner counsel submits that during the pendency of this petition, the appropriate authority i.e., the Regional Commissioner has passed an order dated 13.04.2022 granting approval for renewal of CL-7 license in favour of the petitioner and also to construct additional temporary rooms subject to certain terms and conditions. However, the Authority concerned has not renewed the CL7 license.

¶26

¶27

On the other hand, learned High Court

¶28

Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that the application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of CL-7 license will be considered in the light of order passed by the Regional Commissioner in accordance with law.

¶29

The submission is placed on record. Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the first respondent-Commissioner to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of CL-7 license bearing No.EXE/MYS/IML/HDK/25/CL-7/ 2014-15 at Annexure-B2 in light of the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the Regional Commissioner, Mysuru Division, Mysuru in accordance with law.

¶30

The above exercise shall be concluded within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

RKA

M/S Kay Yess Resorts v. the Commissioner of Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kay Yess Resorts 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Indumathi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K Ravindra Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. B. Nagendra Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. B. Nagendra Vs State of Karnataka

Sri P Y Venugopal Vs the State of Karnataka