Dismissed

Mahadev Mallappa Katkar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jan 2024WP/84258/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Excise Commissioner's order granting permission to a licensee (Respondent 3) to shift his CL-9 permit from one location to another. The court examined whether the shift violated Rule 5 of the Karnataka Excise Rules regarding proximity to residential areas. Finding no material evidence of rule violation and noting the licensee was operating without an interim stay

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed against the order granting permission to shift the CL-9 licence stands dismissed as there is no material to show a violation of Rule 5.

Mahadev Mallappa Katkar Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:141 WP No. 84258 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 84258 OF 2013 (EXCISE)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MAHADEV MALLAPPA KATKAR AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O.H.NO.765, MADHAVPUR, VADAGAON MAIN ROAD, VADAGAON, BELAGAVI.

¶10

SURESH DAMODAR PILANKAR AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O.H.NO.765, MADHAVPUR, VADAGAON MAIN ROAD, VADAGAON, BELAGAVI

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI ASHWIN C HUBLI AND SRI RAVIRAJ C. PATIL, ADVOCATES)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR

¶15

Digitally signed by SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR Date: 2024.01.17 01:00:19 -0800

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ITS SECRETARY, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU.

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER EXCISE BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI

¶18

SANJAY LAXMANRAO JUGANIKAR AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. 10669, NEHRU NAGAR, BELAGAVI

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. S.S.YADRAMI, SENIOR COUNSAL FOR GIRISH M.BHAT FOR R3.)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED

¶22

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:141 WP No. 84258 of 2013

¶23

15/10/2013 BEARING NO.DCE/IML/BGM/CL-9/55/2013-14 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-‘F’ TO THIS WRIT PETITON, ETC.,.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Heard the arguments of Sri Raviraj C. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri V.S.Kalasurmath, learned HCGP for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri S.S.Yadrami, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Girish M. Bhat, for respondent No.3.

¶27

Respondent No.3 who was granted with CL-9 licence submitted an application with the Assistant Commissioner of Excise for shifting of the licence from the existing premises i.e., CTS No.10669 of Nehru Nagar, Belagavi, to CTS No.401/3A1, Bazar Galli, Vadagaon, Belagavi, stating that the respondent was evicted from the premises in which he was operating CL-9 licence. The petitioners and the inhabitants of the locality filed objections before the 2^nd respondent opposing the shifting of CL-9 licence. Respondent No.2 issued an endorsement declining the request of respondent No.3 for shifting of CL-9 licence against which, respondent No.3 filed an appeal before the Excise Commissioner, in Appeal No.86/2013. The Excise Commissioner, vide order dated 10.10.2013, directed the 2^nd respondent to reconsider the application submitted by respondent No.3 for shifting of CL-9 licence. Respondent No.1, after considering the spot inspection report, passed an order granting permission to respondent No.3 to

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:141 WP No. 84258 of 2013

¶29

shift CL-9 licence. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶30

Rule 5 of the Karnataka Excise (General Conditions of Licences) Rules, 1967, deals with restriction in respect of location of shops and it states that no licence for sale of liquor shall be granted to a liquor shop within a distance of 100 metres from any religious or educational institutions or residential locality inhabited predominantly by Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes or hospitals, any office of the State Government or Central Government or Local Authorities or within a distance of 220 metres from the middle of the State Highway and National Highways.

¶31

In the instant case no material is placed to substantiate that respondent No.3 is granted with permission to shift CL-9 licence in violation of Rule 5 of the Rules. In pursuance of the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent, respondent No.3 is operating the CL-9 licence as of today, and there was no interim order operating against respondent No.3.

¶32

In the absence of any violation of the rules in granting permission to respondent No.3, to shift CL-9 licence, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by respondent No.1. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶33

MRK/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 93

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

Mahadev Mallappa Katkar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadev Mallappa Katkar 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

Bharmana Kallappa Parit Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Chandrashekar D Kambalekar Vs the Commissioner of Excise in Karnataka

Faridayasmin D/O Mohammedgous Khaji Vs the Chief Administrative Officer

Harihar Rao S/O. Raghunathrao Patwardhan Vs the Land Tribunal

Guru Siddeshwara Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs Smt Sumangala

Akki Alur Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited Vs the Deputy Registrar of