In writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Karnataka High Court permitted the petitioner to file objections regarding the grant of a CL-11C license to a premises.
submitted to file objections with the 2nd Respondent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO.7357 OF 2022 (EXCISE)
BETWEEN:
SRI A. RAMESH S/O ANANDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.174, HARANAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MOHAN MAHABALESHWAR BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. JYOTHI BHAT, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-4; R-5 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PROHIBIT THE RESPONDENTS FROM GRANTING CL-11C LICENSE IN RESPECT OF THE PREMISES BEARING NO.30/A, HARANAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT FOR THE EXCISE YEAR 2021-22; CONSEQUENTLY, DIRECT THE R-3 AND 4 NOT TO PROCESS THE APPLICATION OF THE R-5 FOR GRANT OF CL-11C LICENSE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
On the objections submitted by the petitioner and others,
the respondent No.4 had rejected two applications submitted by
the 5th respondent for grant of CL-11C license. After rejecting
3
the applications, 5th respondent made another application and the 4th respondent forwarded the application to the 2nd respondent for approval to grant of CL-11C license in favour of the 5th respondent. The petitioner's grievance is that the 4th respondent having rejected the applications submitted by the 5th respondent on two occasions ought not to have forwarded the application submitted by the 5th respondent for granting prior approval.
that the application submitted by the 5th respondent will be considered by the 2nd respondent in accordance with law by considering the objections to be submitted by the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner.
The said submission is taken on record.
The writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to
file objections with the 2nd respondent for considering the application made by respondent No.5 for grant of CL-11C
4
license. If objections are filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, 4th respondent to consider and pass appropriate order.
Sd/JUDGE
bkm
1 issue framed by the court
Whether, after rejecting two applications, the respondent authority can forward a fresh application from the same applicant to the approving authority.
SRI A. RAMESH S/O ANANDAPPA
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE IN KARNATAKA
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
M/S. MYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court