Allowed

Pushparaj Associates v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Sept 2024WP/23713/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging endorsements denying renewal of liquor licenses to a partnership firm. Finding the orders lacked reasoning and invoked an inapplicable rule, the Court set them aside and remanded the matter for grant of renewal after affording an opportunity.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders are set aside, and the matter is remanded to respondent No.4 to reconsider, grant renewal of licenses, and pass appropriate orders within fifteen days.

Pushparaj Associates Vs State of Karnataka — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:38363 WP No. 23713 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 23713 OF 2024 (EXCISE)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

PUSHPARAJ ASSOCIATES, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, NO.8/13, M.G.ROAD, MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201.

¶10

REP BY THE MANAGING PARTNER, SIDDALINGAIAH, S/O CHANDRASHEKAR COUSHETTY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.8/13, MUNISHWARA ROAD, (M.G.ROAD), MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI.G. K. BHAT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT.D. SUDHA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER IN KARNATAKA, 2ND FLOOR, TTMC, 'A' BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38363 WP No. 23713 of 2024

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KODAGU DISTRICT, MADIKERI - 571 201.

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KODAGU DISTRICT, MADIKERI - 571 201.

¶20

THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, MADIKERI RANGE, KODAGU DISTRICT, MADIKERI - 571 201.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.K MANJUNATH., HCGP)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT, QUASHING THE ORDERS CAPTIONED AS ENDORSEMENT DTD 16.08.2024 BEARING NO.EXE/IML/MDK/CL-9/168/2024-25 AND NO. EXE/IML/MDK/CL-7/189/2024-25 DTD 16.08.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-Q AND R RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following

¶27

reliefs:

¶28

"a) Issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the Orders captioned as Endorsement dt.16.08.2024 bearing No.EXE/IML/MDK/CL-9/168/2024-25 and No.EXE/IML/MDK/CL-7/189/2024-25 dt.16.08.2024

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38363 WP No. 23713 of 2024

¶30

as per Annexure-Q and R respectively. ISSUSE BY RESPONDENT NO-4.

¶31

b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent No.4 to renew the License in Form CL-9 dt.29.06.2023 bearing No.ES20230623887 valid up to 30.06.2024 and License in Form CL-7 dt.01.07.2023 bearing No.ES20230628721 valid up to 30.06.2024 as per Annexure as Annexure-G and H respectively for the current Excise Year 2024-25 in favour of the Petitioner.

¶32

c) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as the Hon'ble Court deems it fit under the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice."

¶33

2. Heard Sri G. K. Bhat, learned senior counsel

¶34

appearing for Smt. D.Sudha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Manjunath, learned HCGP for the respondents.

¶35

The petitioner, a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of trade in liquor and other beverages. The firm was initially constituted and registered

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38363 WP No. 23713 of 2024

¶37

on 24.10.2001, there was reconstitution of the partnership

¶38

firm on account of death of a partner by name Smt.C.C.Meenakshi, who died on 06.01.2024 and the Firm was reconstituted on 02.07.2024. The death of the partner was intimated by the petitioner to respondent No.4 and further reconstitution of the firm was also intimated. The

¶39

license granted in form CL-7 and CL-9 was to expire on 30.06.2024, the petitioner-firm made an application in the prescribed form seeking renewal of the two licenses after remitting the prescribed license fee.

¶40

The renewal of licenses in favour of the

¶41

petitioner having not been considered, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.21188/2024, seeking direction to consider the application for renewal of the licenses. In the meanwhile, respondent No.4 issued an endorsement on the application for renewal of the licenses in Form CL-7 and CL-9 and the petitioner withdrew the said writ petition and preferred the present petition challenging the endorsement issued by respondent No.4.

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38363 WP No. 23713 of 2024

¶43

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,

¶44

the impugned order passed by respondent No.4 in denying the benefit of renewal of the licenses in form CL-9 and CL7 respectively does not indicate any reason for denial of the renewal.

¶45

Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner is a partnership firm and the death of a partner will not attract Rule 17-A of the Karnataka Excise licenses (General Conditions) Rule, 1967 and it is applicable only in the event of death of an individual person as a licensee.

¶46

Learned Senior Counsel submits that the

¶47

respondent No.4 has denied the licenses sought by the petitioner without assigning proper reasons and without considering that Rule 17-A of the Rule 1967 is not applicable to the present facts.

¶48

Learned High Court Government Pleader reiterating the statement of objections filed by the state would contend that the person claiming to be the legal heir

¶49

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38363 WP No. 23713 of 2024

¶50

of Smt.C.C. Meenakshi, who is made as partner is suffering from the disease of “DOWN SYNDROME” who is not entitled to sell or participate in the Liquor business and no excise license is liable to be transferred to the name of such person as per Rule 4-B of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign liquors) Rule, 1968 and taking this

¶51

Court to Rule 4-B of Rule, 1968 submits that the Excise license of the petitioner cannot be renewed with effect from 01.07.2024 and hence, the petitioner is not entitled for sale of liquor and there is no illegality in the action initiated by the respondents.

¶52

This Court has carefully considered the rival

¶53

contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶54

Perusal of the impugned order at Annexures-“Q”

¶55

and “R” cannot hold the Court for long to set aside the impugned order as no reasons are forthcoming in the impugned endorsement and the only reason assigned by respondent No.4 holding that the petitioner has failed to

¶56

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:38363 WP No. 23713 of 2024

¶57

comply the Rule 17-A of the Karnataka Excise licenses (General Conditions) Rule, 1967 and the petitioner is not entitled for sale of liquor without getting the excise license truly renewed by respondent No.4/Competent Authority.

¶58

The impugned orders lack proper reasoning making this Court to remit the matter to respondent No.4 to reconsider and pass appropriate orders for grant of renewal of licenses in form CL-9 and CL-7 and pass appropriate orders after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to putforth their contentions and this Court pass the following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(i) Writ petition is allowed

¶61

(ii) The impugned orders passed at Annexures – “Q” and

¶62

“R” are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to respondent No.4 to reconsider and pass appropriate orders.

¶63

(iii) Petitioner to be present before respondent No.4 on 25.09.2024 and re-submit the application in

¶64

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:38363 WP No. 23713 of 2024

¶65

accordance with law, on such resubmission of the

¶66

application, respondent No.4 to pass appropriate

¶67

orders within fifteen days.

¶68

(iv) All the contentions are kept open to be urged before

¶69

the respondent No.4.

¶70

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶71

AMA

¶72

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Pushparaj Associates v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushparaj Associates 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Workmen of Tafe Employees Union Vs Management of Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited

Ashaunnisa Vs Divisional Controller Ksrtc

M/S Automotive Axles Ltd. Vs Sri a Syed Shabeeruddin

Sri Kariyanna K Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Nalini K Vs Bengaluru Electricity Supply Co.Ltd

Shri K N Murthy Vs Shri K N Narayanaswamy