M.R. Shivalingaswamy Vs the Commissioner of Excise

M.R. SHIVALINGASWAMY, S/O M.S. RUDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, CL-9 LICENSEE, NO.6130, BALAJI BAR AND RESTAURANT, SY. NO.6/7, SAGARAPETA VILLAGE, CHENNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI BN SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S O/O COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, 2^ND FLOOR, TTMC 'A' BLOCK Location: High Court of Karnataka BMTC COMPLEX, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027.

¶14

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, NO. 2007/1234, 2^ND FLOOR, 2^ND CROSS, VEERABHADRAPPA EXTENSION, BIET COLLEGE ROAD, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE - 577 004.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI BHOJEGOUDA T. KOLLER, AGA)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:35804 WP No. 13396 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO.EXE/BHATHUM/CHANNAGIRI/CL9/23/2022-03 DATED 26/05/2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AS PER ANNEXURE-A, AS ILLEGAL AND UNENFORCEABLE IN LAW AND ETC.,

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Challenging order dated 26.05.2023 passed by respondent no.2 in no.EXE/BHATHUM/CHANNAGIRI/CL9/23/2022-23 at Annexure-A and seeking for writ of mandamus directing respondents not to take any action for shifting license of petitioner in terms of Circular dated 29.09.2022 at Annexure-C issued by Excise Commissioner, this petition is filed.

¶24

Sri BN Shetty, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner was holder of CL-9 licence running Bar

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:35804 WP No. 13396 of 2023

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

and Restaurant by name, Balaji Bar and Restaurant at premises in Sy.no.6/7, Sagarapete Village, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District. It was submitted, said premises was approved, after verifying that it did not suffer from any objections as per Rule 5 of Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 ('Rules' for short). It was submitted, thereafter petitioner was doing business by renewing his licence every year as required and had earned goodwill at said place. But, in view of Government Notification, upgrading district roads to State Highways and on ground that petitioner's Bar and Restaurant, was in vicinity of district road now upgraded to State Highways would be objectionable, Deputy Commissioner of Excise passed order for shifting to any other suitable premises as per Annexure-A dated 26.05.2023. Challenging said order, this writ petition was filed.

¶28

It was submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that in view of Notification issued by State on 16.08.2024, gazetted on 17.08.2024, amending Rule 5(4) of Rules, a proviso to following effect was inserted:

¶29

"Provided that, nothing in sub-rule (4), shall be applicable to a person holding a Microbrewery licence

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:35804 WP No. 13396 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

or a licence in Form CL-4 or Form CL-7 or Form CL-

¶33

6A or Form CL-9."

¶34

With insertion of proviso creating an exception to

¶35

holders of CL-9 licence, petitioner would be saved from shifting. On said ground alone, learned counsel for petitioner sought for quashing of order at Annexure-A.

¶36

Learned AGA, on other hand, though sought to

¶37

oppose writ petition, is unable to counter submission of learned counsel for petitioner based on amendment to Rule 5(4).

¶38

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition.

¶39

It is seen petitioner is holder of CL-9 licence and operating same at premises hitherto in vicinity of district road and in view of issuance of Notification by State Government, upgrading district roads to State Highways alleged to have rendered premises objectionable. On said ground, impugned order was passed.

¶40

With amendment to Rule 5(4) of Rules inserting

¶41

proviso creating an exception in case of persons holding CL-9 licenses amongst others, basis for passing impugned order

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:35804 WP No. 13396 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

would be lost. Consequently, petitioner would be entitled to succeed. Therefore, impugned order dated 26.05.2023 passed by respondent no.2 in no.EXE/BHATHUM/CHANNAGIRI/CL9/23/2022-23 at Annexure-A stands quashed , Writ petition is

¶45

allowed .

¶46

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶47

AV

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

M.R. Shivalingaswamy v. the Commissioner of Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.R. Shivalingaswamy v. the Commissioner of Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.C. S. Phanichandra Vs the Commissioner

M/S Solarone Energy Private Limited Vs Central Electricity Regulatory Commission

M/S Micro Labs Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Sheetal K Vs the Commissioner of Excise

Gowramma Vs the Executive Engineer

N Gopi Vs the Managing Director