Allowed

S.B. Manjunath, v. the Excise Commissioner in Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2024WP/25088/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside an impugned memorandum directing the closure of the petitioner's licensed bar, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise. The impugned order was held to be in violation of natural justice as it was passed without hearing the petitioner, despite a previous court order remanding the matter for fresh consideration after affording a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned memorandum/quashing of closure order; direction to Deputy Commissioner to reconsider application within 15 days.

S.B. Manjunath, Vs the Excise Commissioner… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37714 WP No. 25088 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 25088 OF 2024 (EXCISE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

S.B. MANJUNATH, S/O G. BARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, CL-9 LICENSEE, MOON STAR BAR AND RESTAURANT, NO.9338/165/A/9338, DEVANAYAKANAHALLI, HONNALLI TOWN, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 217.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

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

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE – 577 002.

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:37714 WP No. 25088 of 2024

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE – 577 002.

¶16

MALLESH H.R., S/O RAVISHANKAR H.N., AGE MAJOR, 7^TH CROSS, DURGI GUDI, HONNALLI TOWN, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 217.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI.MOHAN M BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT, QUASHING ORDER CAPTIONED AS MEMORANDUM DATED 06.09.2024 IN NO.EXE/BHATHAMA/HONNALLI/CL-9/07/202324 PASSED BY THE R-2 AS PER ANNEXURE – J AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Petitioner has called in question the order captioned as 'Memorandum' dated 06.09.2024 passed by the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Excise at

¶23

Annexure 'J'.

¶24

Heard Sri G K Bhat, learned Senior counsel for

¶25

the petitioner; Sri Manjunath K, learned HCGP for

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:37714 WP No. 25088 of 2024

¶28

respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Mohan M Bhat, learned counsel for the caveat respondent No.4.

¶29

Brief facts

¶30

Petitioner was a licensee in Form CL-9, made an application to the second respondent on 19.01.2024 and sought for permission to shift the business. The second respondent-the competent authority, Deputy Commissioner of Excise passed an order on 29.01.2024 permitting the shifting of the business, which was carried out by the petitioner. The fourth respondent, preferred an appeal before the first respondent, the first respondent passed an order allowing the appeal in part and remitting the matter to the second respondent. It is stated that the second respondent had renewed the license for the current year in respect of the shifted place of business, as the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity in the appeal preferred by the fourth respondent, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No.18327/2024 and this Court by the order dated 12.07.2024, directed the first

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:37714 WP No. 25088 of 2024

¶33

respondent to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law. The operative portion of the order reads as under:

¶34

“(a) The writ petition is allowed.

¶35

(b) The orders dated 13.06.2024, passed by the appellate authority - Commissioner of Excise and the sequential action dated 05.07.2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise implementing the order

¶36

of the appellate authority, also stands quashed.

¶37

(c) The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to consider the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶38

(d) Since both the parties are represented by the learned counsel, I direct them to appear before the appellate authority on 25.07.2024 at 3.00 p.m., before the Commissioner of Excise - appellate authority without receipt of any notice from the appellate authority.

¶39

(e) The appellate authority shall consider the matter and dispose the same within an outer limit of six weeks from25.07.2024.

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37714 WP No. 25088 of 2024

¶41

(f) All other contentions on the merit of the case, remains open.”

¶42

Pursuant to the order of remand passed by this Court, the first respondent-Excise Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by the fourth respondent in part and set aside the order of the second respondent and the matter was remitted back to the second respondent to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. The order of the appellate authority was passed on 05.09.2024, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise on 06.09.2024, abruptly passed an order directing the closure of the licensed business of the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner of Excise failed to consider that the first respondent had remitted the matter to the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Excise to reconsider the matter afresh, when the matter was pending consideration, the impugned order of closure is been directed by the second respondent making this Court to interfere and set aside the order passed at Annexure J.

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:37714 WP No. 25088 of 2024

¶44

The first respondent having directed the second respondent to pass appropriate orders after affording opportunity of being heard, the second respondent could not have passed the impugned order at Annexure J without notice or hearing the petitioner herein. In the said circumstances, this Court pass the following-

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶47

ii. The impugned memorandum/order at Annexure 'J' dated 06.09.2024 is hereby quashed . The respondent No.2 is directed to consider the application of the petitioner in terms of Annexure 'H' in accordance with law, within an outer span of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶48

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶49

YKL

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

S.B. Manjunath, v. the Excise Commissioner in Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.B. Manjunath, v. the Excise Commissioner in 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

B P Jagadish Vs Smt Susheelamma

Sri. K N Rajanna Vs Sri K P Anantha Padmanabha

Smt. Muniyamma Vs Sri. Malla Reddy

Smt K Umadevi Vs Smt Lakshmamma

Sri Boraiah Vs Sri. Malleshaiah

M/S Beml Limited Vs Mr Shankar Nayaka