Ajit S/O Devappa Hukkeri Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Ajit S/O Devappa Hukkeri Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None. Both writ petitions were dismissed; the Court indicated that if there is any violation by respondent No.7, the petitioner may have to file a Public Interest Litigation, being not directly affected.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned CL-7 prior approval at Annexure-P was issued without considering the petitioner's representation/contention. +1 more

Court's answer

The contention that the petitioner's representation was not considered cannot be accepted, as Annexure-G is the reply to the representation.

Ratio / Principle

In terms of Annexure-P, the prior approval is granted subject to certain conditions, and it is for respondent No.7 to comply with those conditions.

Key takeaways

The petitioner is not residing within 500 metres from the place where respondent No.7 is proposing to set up his business.ratio¶7
The submission that the petitioner is not residing within 500 metres of the proposed business place was not disputed on behalf of the petitioner.ratio¶7
The Court found no cause of action for the petitioner and accordingly dismissed Writ Petition No.101875/2025.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Excise — CL-7 licence — prior approval — cause of action/locus standi. The petitioner, a resident of Kudachi (Tq. Raibag, Dist. Belagavi), challenged the prior approval dated 05.03.2025 in No.ES 2024092369/CL-7/BELAGAVI NORTH/2024-2025 (Annexure-P) issued by the Commissioner of Excise (respondent No.2) in favour of respondent No.7, M/s Ratna Enterprises, for the excise year 2024-2025, subject to 26 conditions (styled 'CL7'), contending it was issued without considering his representation; his earlier W.P.No.105916/2024 (mandamus to consider the representation) had been disposed on 21.10.2024, and the authorities' reply stood at Annexure-G. The second petition sought restraint on issuance of the CL-7 licence on residential property No.1691/2 at Kudachi, relying on the petitioner's objection dated 15/2/2025 (Annexure-J) and the Town Municipal Council Kudachi letter dated 7/2/2025 (Annexure-K). Holding that the representation was considered (Annexure-G being its reply), that the prior approval was conditional with compliance being respondent No.7's obligation, and that the petitioner — undisputedly not residing within 500 metres of the proposed business — had no cause of action, the Court dismissed W.P.No.101875/2025; consequently W.P.No.101502/2025 did not survive and was dismissed. The Court observed (hypothetically) that any violation by respondent No.7 could be agitated through a Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner not being directly affected. Per Anant Ramanath Hegde, J. (Dharwad Bench), 17-10-2025; NC: 2025:KHC-D:14152; writs under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14152 WP No. 101875 of 2025 C/W WP No. 101502 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

WRIT PETITION NO.101875 OF 2025 (EXCISE) C/W. WRIT PETITION NO.101502 OF 2025 (EXCISE)

IN WP NO.101875 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

AJIT S/O. DEVAPPA HUKKERI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. KUDACHI TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-511311.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, BENGALURU-560001.

THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, TTMC ‘A’ BLOCK, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14152 WP No. 101875 of 2025 C/W WP No. 101502 of 2025

HC-KAR

BELAGAVI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI, PIN-590001.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, BELAGAVI, NORTH DISTRICT CHIKKODI, AT: CHIKKODI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN: 591201.

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, ATHANI, SUB DIVISION, ATHANI, AT: ATHANI, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591304.

THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, RAIBAG RANGE, RAIBAG, AT: RAIBAG TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591317.

M/S. RATNA ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SUDHAKAR S/O. CHANDRAKANT SALIYAN, NO.1691, KUDACHI (RURAL), TALUK: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591317.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R6; SRI. SADIQ N. GOODWALA, ADV. FOR R7)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 5/3/2025 IN NO.ES 2024092369/CL-7/BELAGAVI NORTH/2024-2025 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-P AND ISSUE ANY OTHER ORDER DIRECTIONS

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14152 WP No. 101875 of 2025 C/W WP No. 101502 of 2025

HC-KAR

DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO PLACE ENTIRE RECORDS/PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING TO ANNEXURE-P BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT FORTHWITH AND ETC.

IN WP NO. 101502 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

AJIT S/O. DEVAPPA HUKKERI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. KUDACHI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-511311.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, BENGALURU-560001.

THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, TTMC ‘A’ BLOCK, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI, PIN-590001.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, BELAGAVI, NORTH DISTRICT CHIKKODI, AT: CHIKKODI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN: 591201.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14152 WP No. 101875 of 2025 C/W WP No. 101502 of 2025

HC-KAR

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, ATHANI, SUB DIVISION, ATHANI, AT: ATHANI, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591304.

THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, RAIBAG RANGE, RAIBAG, AT: RAIBAG, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-591317.

M/S. RATNA ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SUDHAKAR S/O. CHANDRAKANT SALIYAN, NO.1691, KUDACHI (RURAL), TALUK: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591304.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R6; SRI. SADIQ N. GOODWALA, ADV. FOR R7)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 6 NOT TO ISSUE CL-7 LICENSE TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT ON THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY NO.1691/2 EITHER IN GRAM PANCHAYAT AREA OR IN TMC KUDACHI ARE BY CONSIDERING THE OBJECTION DATED 15/2/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND LETTER DATED 7/2/2025 ISSUED BY THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KUDACHI VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14152 WP No. 101875 of 2025 C/W WP No. 101502 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

The Writ Petition No.101875/2025 is filed assailing the order dated 05.03.2025 marked at Annexure-P issued by respondent No.2. The order at Annexure-P issued by respondent No.2 is the prior approval in favour of respondent No.7 for the excise year 2024-2025. The said prior approval is subject to respondent No.7 fulfilling the 26 conditions enumerated therein. This approval is called as ‘CL7’.

Learned counsel the petitioner would submit that earlier to this order, the petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.105916/2024, seeking writ of mandamus against the respondent-authorities to consider his representation. The said writ petition is disposed of vide order dated 21.10.2024, directing the respondentauthorities to consider the representation in accordance with law.

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14152 WP No. 101875 of 2025 C/W WP No. 101502 of 2025

HC-KAR

The present petition is filed on the premise that impugned CL license at Annexure-P is issued without considering the petitioner's contention.

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 5, would urge that representation is considered and endorsement is issued in Annexure-G.

The contention that the representation is not yet considered cannot be accepted, as Annexure-G is the reply to the representation.

It is also noticed that in terms of Annexure-P, the prior approval is granted subject to certain conditions. It is for respondent No.7 to comply the conditions.

Learned counsel for respondent No.7 would also urge that petitioner is not residing within 500 metres from the place where respondent No.7 is proposing to setup his business. That submission is not disputed by the learned for the petitioner.

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14152 WP No. 101875 of 2025 C/W WP No. 101502 of 2025

HC-KAR

This being the position, this Court does not find any cause of action for the petitioner. Accordingly, Writ Petition No.101875/2025 is dismissed.

Assuming that there is any violation by respondent No.7, the petitioner may have to file the Public Interest Litigation as the petitioner is not directly affected by the proposed business of respondent No.7, which is said to be commencing, if permission granted at a distance of more than 500 metres from the petitioner's residence.

In view of the dismissal of W.P.No.101875/2025, Writ Petition No.101502/2025 does not survive for consideration and accordingly stands dismissed .

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

AM/CT-AN

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49