Disposed

Smt Kempamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2024WP/965/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice issued by the Inspector of Excise to collect documents from legal heirs regarding their inclusion in a liquor license. The Court held that the authority to admit heirs and adjudicate entitlement vests with the Excise Commissioner, not the Inspector.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the notice to submit documents was dismissed as the authority lies with the Commissioner.

Smt Kempamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:10588 WP No. 965 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 965 OF 2024 (EXCISE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT KEMPAMMA W/O SINGRI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, CL-9, LICENSEE, SANKRANTHI BAR AND RESTAURANT, K.M. DODDI - 571 422 MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. G.K. BHAT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

¶10

SMT. SUDHA D., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP: BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, 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 OF EXCISE MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571 401.

¶16

THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE MADDUR RANGE, MADDUR - 571 428.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:10588 WP No. 965 of 2024

¶19

SMT. SHRUTHI B D/O LATE BETTAIAH, W/O NAVEEN KUMAR R, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT AT K.M. DODDI, C.A. KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, NOW R/AT 3RD MAIN, 4TH CROSS, NEAR GANAPATHI TEMPLE, SANTHI NAGAR, TUMKUR - 572 102. 6. SMT. KALYANI D/O LATE BETTAIAH, W/O S. NANDEESH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT AT K.M. DODDI, C.A. KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, NOW R/AT C/O CHITTUR REDDY, NO.22, ANNAIAH REDDY LAYOUT, 10TH MAIN ROAD, 100 FEET ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560 043. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.R. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI B.N. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 18/12/2023 IN NO. EXE/MDR/IML/01/2021-22 AS PER ANNEXURE -N, CONSEQUENTLY THE REMINDER DATED 26/12/2023 IN NO.EXE/MDR/IML/01/2021-22 AS PER ANNEXURE-P ISSUED BY THE R4.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Sri. Bettaiah, son of the petitioner, was holding a CL-9 license, leaving behind the petitioner and his two daughters ie. Respondents 5 & 6 as his only legal heirs. On the demise of the

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10588 WP No. 965 of 2024

¶24

original holder of the CL-9 license, the petitioner submitted an application for transfer of the license along with documents.

¶25

Respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner, Mandya by order dated 30.06.2008, permitted the transfer of license in favour of the petitioner on a condition that, with respondent Nos.5 and 6 attaining the age of majority, the names of these respondents shall be included in the CL-9 License.

¶26

In the year 2019, the 5th and 6^th respondents filed an application to include their names in the CL-9 license, and the 3^rd respondent issued a notice dated 07.01.2019 calling upon them to produce the Succession Certificate. Consequently, to said notice, the 5^th and 6^th respondents filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, in P&SC No.1/2019 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Maddur without arraigning the petitioner as a party to the proceedings.

¶27

The petitioner herein asserts that in the aforementioned proceedings, he had filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the C.P.C. to come on record to oppose the same and also filed her objections to the petition. Thereafter, respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. for injunction against shifting of the current premises situated at Lakshmisagara Village, Pandavapura Taluk, Mandya District to K.M. Doddy, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District. The said application was allowed, and an injunction was granted, and the case ended up in a compromise. Consequently,

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:10588 WP No. 965 of 2024

¶30

respondent Nos.5 and 6 gave up their claim after receiving monetary consideration in lieu of their share in the License and filed a memo for withdrawal of the petition. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 24.11.2020 in terms of the compromise arrived at.

¶31

The 2^nd respondent, after these proceedings included the names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the CL-9 license along with the petitioner's.

¶32

Meanwhile, the petitioner shifted her business to a different place and also submitted an application to transfer the CL-9 license in favour of her grandson.

¶33

The order including the names of Respondents 5 & 6 was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.23869/2021, and this Court by order dated 01.09.2023 disposed of the writ petition with the following observation at paras 9, 10 and 11:

¶34

"9. The petitioner, after the demise of the original license holder, has got the license transferred stating that she and the third and fourth respondents would be the legal heirs of the deceased original license holder Sri Bettaiah. The order dated 30.06.2020 is not disputed, and consequently, the third and the fourth respondents would be entitled for inclusion of their names in the license as joint holders. As such, the petitioner cannot have any grievance. This Court must observe that the third and the fourth respondents are not asking for the license in their names to the exclusion of the petitioner.

¶35

The contention that there was an agreement whereby the third and the fourth respondents have agreed to give up their claims to be co-licensees cannot be accepted in the present proceedings in the absence of

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10588 WP No. 965 of 2024

¶37

material to justify the same. The submission that the third and fourth respondents do not even contemplate disrupting the conduct of the business but insist on their rights, in the considered view of this Court, allays all fears of disruption in the business or the petitioner being prejudiced.

¶38

In the light of the afore the petition must be disposed of observing that because of the submissions now made by Sri B.N.Shetty that the third and the fourth respondents, if they do not receive their share in the profits in terms of their entitlement without disrupting the business, must workout their remedies in a properly instituted civil suit."

¶39

Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in WP No.23869/2021, respondent Nos.5 and 6 approached the 3^rd respondent to include their names in the CL-9 License which was originally granted in favour of late Bettaiah, and in order to consider said application, the Excise Inspector was authorized by the 3^rd respondent to collect all the relevant documents to consider the claim for inclusion of their names along with that of the petitioner in the CL-9 License.

¶40

Sri G.K. Bhat, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the authority to consider the case for including the names of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the CL-9 License is with the 3^rd respondent and, therefore, the impugned communication by the 4^th respondent is one without authority of law. He further submits that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 had relinquished their right in the CL-9 License by filing a memo before the Trial Court in P&SC No.1/2019, and therefore, respondent Nos.5 and 6 are not

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:10588 WP No. 965 of 2024

¶43

entitled for inclusion of their names in the CL-9 License along with the petitioner.

¶44

Per contra , learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 submits that the issue as to whether respondent Nos.5 and 6 are entitled for inclusion of their names in the CL-9 license has attained finality before this Court in WP No.23869/2021. He further submits that the 4^th respondent is only authorized to collect the relevant documents and furnish the same to the 3^rd respondent so as to re-consider the claim of respondent Nos.5 and 6, and the same, being admitted, cannot be said to be one without authority of law and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶45

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

¶46

This Court in WP No.23869/2021 held that the contention of the petitioner that there was an agreement entered into between the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 6, and that the respondents have agreed to give up their claim to the colicensees cannot be accepted in the absence of any material to justify the same. It was also observed that after the demise of the original licensee holder, the petitioner has gotten the license transferred stating that she and the 5^th and 6^th respondents would be the legal heirs of the deceased original license holder Sri. Bettaiah, and the order dated 30.06.2020 is not disputed, as a

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:10588 WP No. 965 of 2024

¶49

result of which, the 5^th and 6^th respondents would be entitled for inclusion of their names in the license as joint holders.

¶50

The contention of the petitioner is already negated by this Court in W.P.No.23869/2021, and has attained finality. Therefore, the impugned communication issued by the 4^th respondent cannot be interfered with, since the 4^th respondent has only called upon the 5^th and 6^th respondents to furnish relevant documents for inclusion of their names in the CL-9 license and the authority to adjudicate as to whether the 5^th and 6^th respondents are entitled for inclusion of their names in the CL-9 License solely vests with the 3^rd respondent.

¶51

With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

Smt Kempamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Kempamma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prestige Bougainvillea Home Owners Association, Vs Assistant Executive Engineer (E)

Mohammed Sadiq @ Saleem Salman Vs the State

B S Devaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Jayamma Vs State of Karnataka

Lakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka

Veeresh R Vs State of Karnataka