Disposed

V Gopal v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2024WP/259/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A CL-9 excise licence holder's renewal application was rejected on grounds that it was not in prescribed form and lacked fee deposit proof. The court upheld the rejection but directed the authority to allow a fresh application in Form CL-1A with fees and to decide it under Rule 5-A.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file renewal application in Form CL-1A with prescribed fee within two weeks; Respondent No.4 to consider it under Rule 5-A within eight weeks thereafter.

V Gopal Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:10996 WP No. 259 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.259 OF 2024 (EXCISE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

V. GOPAL, S/O VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.214, 2ND CROSS, KASTURINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 043. THROUGH HIS GPA HOLDER, SMT. SWARNALATHA GOPAL, W/O V. GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.214, 2ND CROSS, KASTURINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

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

¶11

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10996 WP No. 259 of 2024

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-(BUD-1) NO.26/4, 3RD FLOOR, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, NEAR MYSORE SANDAL SOAP FACTORY METRO STATION, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 010.

¶18

THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, NANDINI LAYOUT, RANGE-5, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-(BUD-1), NO. 62, 3RD FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, IST MAIN ROAD, YASHWANTHAPURA INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, BENGALURU - 560 022.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. S.R. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER CAPTIONED AS ENDORSEMENT DATED:27.11.23 IN NO. EXE (BUD-1) IML/NAM.LAY.VA/ URJITHA / 02/422/20-21 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-N AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner was granted with CL-9 licence under Rule 5 of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968 (in short 'the Rules'), for the year 1989-99. Thereafter, from the year 1999-2000, the petitioner did not submit an application for renewal of the licence. In view of insertion of Rule 5-A to the said Rules, the petitioner submitted an application with the respondent for renewal of CL-9 licence. The said application was rejected

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:10996 WP No. 259 of 2024

¶27

stating that the petitioner is of unsound mind which prompted the petitioner to approach this Court in Writ Petition No.9187/2022.

¶28

This court vide order dated 27.05.2022, set aside the endorsement rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner, and directed the authorities concerned to re-consider the application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of CL-9 licence in terms of Rule 5-A of the Rules.

¶29

The authority concerned rejected the application stating that the medical board of Victoria Hospital has opined that the petitioner is dependent on wheel-chair for mobility, and is completely dependent on others for physical and mental activities as he is unable to take decisions and act physically.

¶30

The petitioner through his wife G.P.A Holder, approached this Court in Writ Petition No.19465/2023. This Court vide order dated 12.09.2023, quashed the endorsement issued by the authority concerned stating that a person who has suffered disability because of an after-effect as a consequence of health trauma, as in the present case, cannot be called a person of unsound mind for the purpose of obtaining renewal of CL 9 licence under Rules 5-A of the Rules and also held that petitioner had filed an application for renewal through his power of attorney, and the application must be considered without any objection.

¶31

In pursuance of the Order passed by this Court, the authority concerned rejected the application stating that the application for renewal submitted by the petitioner is not in the prescribed format and also the application is not accompanied by

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:10996 WP No. 259 of 2024

¶34

an receipt for having deposited the renewal fees and additional renewal fees.

¶35

Sri.G.K.Bhat, learned senior counsel would contend that there is no application in any prescribed form for renewal of licence and the application for renewal was accompanied by Challan for having deposited the renewal fee and additional fee. Therefore, the impugned memorandum dated 22.11.2023 issued by the Respondent No.4 is contrary to the provisions contained in Rule 5-A of the Rules.

¶36

Per contra, learned Addl. Government Advocate for State submits that the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected since the application was not filed in the format prescribed and not accompanied by a receipt for having deposited renewal fee and additional licence fee and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶37

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on previous two occasions, the application filed by the petitioner was rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner was of unsound mind, and not on the ground that the application submitted by the petitioner was not in the prescribed format or that the petitioner has not deposited the regular fee or additional licence fee.

¶38

Rule 4(1)(b) of the Rules mandates that the application for grant of CL-9 license should be filed in Form CL-1A of the Rules, 1968 and the same is made applicable for grant or

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:10996 WP No. 259 of 2024

¶41

renewal of licence. The petitioner has not submitted the application in the prescribed form, and also not produced any material to substantiate the license fee prescribed under Rule 8 has been deposited with the authority concerned. Therefore, the impugned memorandum issued by the Respondent No.4 cannot be faulted with, however, Respondent No.2 ought to have called upon the petitioner to submit an application in the prescribed form after depositing the license fee if not already deposited.

¶42

Accordingly, Petition stands disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to submit an application in the prescribed form as stated under Rule 4(1)(b) of the Rules, 1968 along with the prescribed license fee and also relevant documents, if not already furnished with the Respondent No.4, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this Order. Upon receipt of application to be submitted in prescribed form, Respondent No.4 to consider the application strictly in terms of Rule 5-A of the Rules and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from thereafter.

¶43

It is made clear the mere pendency of the suit between the petitioner and third party shall not preclude Respondent No.4 in considering the application to be submitted to the petitioner in the absence of any order of restraint.

¶44

BNV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22 CT:SNN

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

V Gopal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V Gopal 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.P. Sharvani Vs Mrs. Shabanas Abdul Jaleel

Pattabhiramaiah Vs Rajanna

Sri. Seenappa Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Sri K T Srinivash Murthy Vs State of Karnataka

P. Arjun G Shenoy Vs the State of Karnataka

R Venkatachalapathi Vs the Deputy Commissioner