Allowed

R Venkatachalapathi v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2024WP/27254/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A CL-9 liquor licensee relocated his shop after business losses; the Deputy Commissioner withdrew the licence citing a tourism-promotion condition. The High Court held Rule 23 permits relocation absent any restricting clause in the licence or circular, quashed the Tribunal's order cancelling the shifting permission, and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Tribunal order dated 13.03.2018 cancelling the shifting of the CL-9 licence from Petachamanahalli to Jodikrishnarajapura Village quashed; writ petition allowed.

R Venkatachalapathi Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:11151 WP No. 27254 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 27254 OF 2018 (EXCISE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

R. VENKATACHALAPATHI S/O K.M. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS CL-9 LICENSEE, SY. NO.52/14, JODI KRISHNAPURA VILLAGE, NARASAPURA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. MOHAN BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D.C. OFFICE COMPOUND, COURT CIRCLE, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563 101.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE D.C. OFFICE COMPOUND, COURT CIRCLE, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563 101.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE IN KARNATAKA, 2ND FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:11151 WP No. 27254 of 2018

¶17

G.O. KRISHNA S/O OBAIAH, R/O NO.1229/6, 9TH 'C' CROSS, SRINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. S.R. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; R4 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.3.2018 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.830/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-K TO THE EXTENT IT RELATES TO CANCELLING THE SHIFTING OF THE PLACE OF BUSINESS OF CL-9 LICENSE BELONGS TO THE PETITIONER FROM PETACHNAMANAHALLI TO JODIKRISHNARAJAPURA VILLAGE AS PER ANNEXURE-E.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

To promote tourism, Originally one G. Yoginarayana was granted with CL-9 license on 11.9.1998 for vending liquor in the premises bearing A.S.No.436, Katha No.1154, Site No.21, Petachamanahalli, Kolar Taluk, for the Excise year 1998-99.

¶24

The CL-9 license was transferred in the name of the petitioner as stated under Rule 17-B of the Karnataka Excise Licenses (General Conditions) Rules, 1967. The petitioner, who continued with the CL-9 license in the said premises submitted an application with the 2nd respondent to relocate the license to the present premises stating that the business of vending liquor carried by him was under loss and was not flourishing. The 2nd respondent passed an order dated 02.02.2013 granting permission to relocate the CL-9 license to the present premises.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11151 WP No. 27254 of 2018

¶26

Such being the case, the 1st respondent issued a show cause notice as to why the license should not be withdrawn as stated under Section 30 of the Karnataka Excise Act.

¶27

The petitioner asserts that the show cause notice was suitably replied. However without considering the reply, the license granted in favour of the petitioner was withdrawn by the 1st respondent by order dated 29.10.2013. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent under Section 61(2) of the Karnataka Excise Act. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the 1st respondent withdrawing the license granted in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner filed the second appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal under Section 61(3) of the Karnataka Excise Act. The Tribunal set aside the order withdrawing the license granted in favour of the petitioner but also canceled the order granting permission to the petitioner to relocate the license to the present premises. Taking exception of the same, this petition is filed.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the absence of any provision prohibiting relocation of the CL-9 license issued for promoting tourism, the order granting permission to relocate the licesne was in conformity with Rule 23 of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is not sustainable in law.

¶29

Per Contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 3 submits that, CL-9 License was granted

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:11151 WP No. 27254 of 2018

¶31

to the original licensee to promote the tourism, and CL-9 license having been shifted beyond 5 Kilometers radius from the identified place of Tourism, the 1st respondent had rightly withdrawn the license as stated under Section 30 of the Karnataka Excise Act. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal does not warrant any interference.

¶32

I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶33

Originally, the CL-9 license was granted on 11.9.1998, and thereafter the license was transferred in the name of the petitioner as stated under Rule 17-B of the Rules on 8.11.2010. The petitioner was permitted to shift the CL-9 license to the present premises on 2.2.2013 stating that the business of vending liquor was not flourishing in the original place of license.

¶34

Rule 5 of the Karnataka excise(sale of Indian and foreign liquors), rules 1968 deals with the grant of license subject to certain terms and conditions.

¶35

Rule 23 of the Karnataka Excise Licenses (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 deals with the shifting of the shops and it states that, Subject to the restrictions specified in Rule 5, the Deputy Commissioner may permit a licensee to shift the location of his shop from one place to another within the limits of a Grama Panchayat or within the Municipal Area or City Municipal Corporation on payment of a fee equivalent to twenty-five per cent of the license fee charged on the license in respect of such shop.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:11151 WP No. 27254 of 2018

¶38

In the light of the Rule 23, the petitioner was permitted to shift the location of the shop on 2.2.2013 although, originally the license was granted to promote Tourism. However, the petitioner cannot be compelled to operate in the premises to promote Tourism, when the petitioner had specifically sought for shifting of the location stating that the business was not flourishing in the original place of business.

¶39

There is no condition imposed in the CL-9 license that the licensee cannot shift the place of business even though the CL-9 license was granted to promote Tourism. Merely because, the CL-9 License was granted for promoting Tourism, that would not preclude the petitioner to shift the place of business as stated under Rule 23 of the Karnataka Excise Licenses (General Conditions) Rules, 1967.

¶40

The circular dated 20.12.1995 only contemplates that to grant a license to promote tourism, the place of business to which the license is granted must be within 5 kms radius of the identified place of tourism. There is no clause restricting the relocation of license at any point of time. Originally, the license was granted for the excise year 1998-99, and the license was relocated to the present premises in the year 2103 on account of financial viability.

¶41

The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, contrary to Rule 23 of the Karnataka Excise Licenses (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 passed the impugned order holding that the petitioner has shifted the place of business and consequently canceled the order granting shifting the place of business. Therefore, the impugned

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:11151 WP No. 27254 of 2018

¶43

order passed by the respondent No.1 as well as the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal is contrary to the provisions contained in Rule 5 and Rule 23 of the Karnataka Excise (General Conditions of Licenses) Rules, 1967.

¶44

In view of the above, I pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.03.2018 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.830/2014 at Annexure-K insofar it relates to canceling the shifting of the place of business of CL-9 License granted to the petitioner from Petachamanahalli to Jodikrishnarajapura Village is hereby quashed.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

R Venkatachalapathi v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Venkatachalapathi v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

V Gopal Vs the State of Karnataka