Dismissed

Suryodaya Educational Trust v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2024WP/7061/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the grant of a CL-7 liquor license to a nearby respondent, claiming it violated proximity rules for educational institutions and lacked a hearing. The court examined a site report and rejected the proximity claim based on existing gate distances at the time of application.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. No relief granted to the petitioner.

Suryodaya Educational Trust Vs the Deputy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:9147 WP No. 7061 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.7061 OF 2022 (EXCISE)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SURYODAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.T. KRISHNA S/O LATE ERAPPA AGED 58 YEARS, R/AT THIRUPALYA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 106.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. R.HEMANTH RAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BEHIND KANDHAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶15

THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER BMTC BUILDING, SHANTHINAGARA, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER EXCISE BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-8, RANGE NO.49, BUD-08

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:9147 WP No. 7061 of 2022

¶18

MYSORE ROAD, BAPUJI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560026.

¶19

THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE RANGE-49, (BANNERGHATTA), BUD-08 NO.1616, KHB-2, SURYA CITY PHASE, ATTIBLE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 560 081.

¶20

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDANT OF EXCISE SUB DIVISION 16, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT 08 RANGE NO.49, MYSORE ROAD, BAPUJI NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 026.

¶21

SRI. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY S/O CHIKKA RAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, LICENSE HOLDER TO THE R. K. R. RESIDENCY NO.02/14/D, WARD NO.11, THIRUPALYA, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT – 560 099.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. S.R. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. MOHAN BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R6 V/O DATED 08.12.2022 SRI. RAJENDRA S., ADVOCATE IS APPOINTED AS COURT COMMISSIONER)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETASIDE/QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 04.03.2022 PASSED BY THE R-2 (EXCISE COMMISSIONER, STATE OF KARNATAKA) IN ORDER NO.ES2022021022/CL-7/ BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-08/2021-22 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9147 WP No. 7061 of 2022

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioner has called in question the CL-7 licence granted to respondent No.6 for serving liquor to the inmates and casual visitors of the boarding and lodging belonging to the petitioner.

¶29

The petitioner asserts that it is the registered educational trust, and has established an educational institution, and CL-7 licence granted in favour of respondent No.6 is in violation of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967. The petitioner’s specific contention is that the premises to which the CL-7 licence is granted is within 100 meters from the educational institution run by the petitioner.

¶30

The petitioner’s further grievance is that the CL-7 licence was granted without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:9147 WP No. 7061 of 2022

¶33

As there was a controversy as to whether the CL-7 licnece being operated by respondent No.6 is within 100 meters of the petitioner’s school or not, this Court vide order dated 18.12.2022 appointed Sri Rajendra S., learned counsel as Court Commissioner to measure the distance between the petitioner’s educational institution, and business premises of respondent No.6, and submit a report.

¶34

In the light of the order passed by this Court, the Court Commissioner submitted a report annexing copy of the spot inspection mahazar, photographs and sketch showing the topography, and measurements between the school, and the bar, and restaurant etc., and also the record of rights pertaining to the property, in which, the petitioner has established the educational institution.

¶35

Perusal of the sketch annexed to the Court Commissioner’s report indicate that the new entrance gate without compound wall is installed at a distance of 9.8 meters from the business premises of respondent No.2. However, the existing old gate is situated at the distance of 200 meters from the business

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9147 WP No. 7061 of 2022

¶37

premises of respondent No.6. The photographs annexed to the report indicated that the new gate without compound wall was installed recently. The new gate installed with compound wall is to provide access to the open ground, and not to the premises, in which, the petitioner has established an educational institution. This suggests that the gate was installed after appointment of Court Commissioner with sole intention of bringing the premises within 100 meters of the business premises.

¶38

The record of rights annexed to the Court Commissioner’s report indicate that the land, on which, the petitioner has established the educational institution belongs to the Government, and the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of the land has been rejected, and challenge was made to the said rejection before this Court, and the writ petition was withdrawn, and the proceeding is initiated against the petitioner before the Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Courts.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

¶40

earlier application for grant of land was made by the trustees in

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:9147 WP No. 7061 of 2022

¶43

their individual capacity, and the trust has submitted an application afresh for grant of land, and the same is pending consideration.

¶44

Be that as it may, as on the date, when the application was submitted by respondent No.6, and licence in CL-7 was granted to respondent No.6, the gate, which existed, was 200 meters from the business premises of respondent No.6, therefore, in the absence of any violation of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order granting CL-7 licence in favour of respondent No.6.

¶45

Accordingly, petition stands dismissed .

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59

Suryodaya Educational Trust v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suryodaya Educational Trust 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

Sri Jagadish Shetty H S Vs the Aisiri Co. Operative Society Limited

Sri. Arun Ballakur Vs Sri.M.Krishna Reddy

Sri G B Mahesh Babu Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Hotel Mallige Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri J Magesh Vs the Executive Engineer (v)

Mr Chuna Rafi Ahmed Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited