Dismissed

E K Prathap v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2022WP/4051/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the challenge to orders refusing to grant an injunction against the issuance of a Class 2 liquor license, holding that Section 68-B of the Karnataka Excise Act barred such relief.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; orders of lower courts quashing the injunction application upheld.

E K Prathap Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.4051 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

E. K. PRATHAP S/O KARUNAKARA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS NEAR MARKET, MAHADEVPET, MADIKERI-571 201. KODAGU DISTRICT.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SMT. SUDHA. D., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, T.T.M.C, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KODAGU DISTRICT, MADIKERI.

¶14

¶15

SMT. JOLLY THOMAS W/O LATE K.T. THOMAS AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS BLOCK NO.7, BUILDING NO.29/1B, COLLEGE ROAD, MADIKERI-571 201. KODAGU DISTRICT.

¶16

….RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. ROOPA K.R., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. B.N. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22^ND DECEMBER, 2020 PASSED ON IA.III IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.132 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, MADIKERI VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT OF THE ORDER DATED 19^TH FEBRUARY, 2021 IN MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.01 OF 2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADIKERI VIDE ANNEXURE-F; AND ETC.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in Original Suit No.132 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge, Madikeri (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’), challenging the order dated 19^th February, 2021 in Miscellaneous Appeal No.1 of 2021 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Madikeri (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’),

¶22

¶23

confirming the order dated 22^nd December, 2020, passed on IA.III filed by the plaintiff.

¶24

The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that, the plaintiff has filed suit against the defendants seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants from transferring or granting of CL-2 Liquour License issued in respect of the suit schedule property. The said application was contested by defendants. The trial Court, by order dated 22^nd December, 2020 in Original Suit No.132 of 2016, dismissed the application. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred appeal before the First Appellate Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No.1 of 2021. The First Appellate Court, by order dated 19^th February, 2021, dismissed the appeal, consequently confirmed the order dated 22^nd December, 2020 passed in Original Suit No.132 of 2016. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has presented this writ petition.

¶25

Smt. Sudha. D, learned counsel appearing for petitioner contended that, the finding recorded by both the Courts below, declining to entertain the application IA.III filed by the plaintiff

¶26

¶27

under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code is bad in law, despite, the plaintiff having made out the prima facie case before the trial Court. She further, contended that the writ petition has been filed before this Court with regard to grant of CL-2 Liquour license in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, without considering the same, both the Courts below have passed impugned orders, which require interference in this writ petition.

¶28

Per contra, Sri. B.N. Shetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the both the Courts below and contended that the injunctive relief cannot be sought against respondent authorities restraining them from exercising their powers under the provisions of Excise Act. Therefore, he submits that the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below are just and proper.

¶29

Smt. Roopa K.R., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for State, supports the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below and submits that orders passed by the Courts below are just and proper, which do not call for

¶30

¶31

interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, learned counsel representing respondents sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶32

In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for parties, I have carefully considered the finding recorded by both the Courts below. Undisputably, the suit is filed by the plaintiff, seeking permanent injunction against the respondents. The trial Court, while considering the application in IA.III has arrived at a conclusion that there is a bar under Section 68-B of the Karnataka Excise Act. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for relief in the suit and accordingly, dismissed the application IA.III. The First Appellate Court has also considered the finding recorded by the trial Court, wherein, the First Appellate Court, taking into consideration the provision contained under the Karnataka Excise Act has arrived at a conclusion that no relief should be given to the plaintiff in view of the bar under Section 68-B of the Karnataka Excise Act. Taking into consideration the well reasoned finding recorded by the trial Court, I am of the opinion that, both the Courts below have

¶33

¶34

concurrently held against the plaintiff, and exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited unless there is a flagrant injustice has been caused. In that view of the matter, writ petition deserves to be dismissed, accordingly dismissed.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

ARK

E K Prathap v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E K Prathap 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

Smt. Muthamma Vs Sri. Shivappa B C

Masooda Begum Vs Smt P S Sangeetha

Sri M Muninanja Vs Sri N Changalarayan

Nagaraja Vs Srinivasa

Smt K N Shobha Vs Shri S Krishnappa

M/S Bangalore Metropolitan Vs Ve Commercial Vehicles Ltd.