Ramesh Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Ramesh Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioners to move the Appellate Authority against the licence-cancellation order; time spent prosecuting the writ petition to be excluded in computing limitation; Registry to return the certified copy of the petition after retaining a xerox copy; nothing expressed on the merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the order cancelling the licence under Section 29 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 should be entertained by this Court when the order is admittedly appealable and the contention regarding the authority's power under Section 29 can be raised before the Appellate Authority.

Court's answer

Since the impugned licence-cancellation order is appealable, the petitioners' contention that the authority could not have passed the order under Section 29 of the Act of 1965 can be raised before the Appellate Authority; liberty is reserved to the petitioners to move the Appellate Authority in the manner known to law.

Ratio / Principle

Time spent in prosecuting this writ petition shall be excluded in calculating the limitation period for the appellate remedy.

Key takeaways

Nothing is expressed on the merits of the matter; if an appeal is filed as provided under the law, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.ratio¶35-36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by two licence-holders challenging the order dated 02.01.2025 in No. DTCR/642/2024-25 of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, cancelling their licence under Section 29 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. The Court noted that the order is admittedly appealable, held that the contention that the authority could not have passed the order under Section 29 could be raised before the Appellate Authority, reserved liberty to the petitioners to move the Appellate Authority, directed that time spent in prosecuting the writ petition be excluded in calculating limitation, and disposed of the petition expressly without expressing anything on the merits, directing that any appeal filed be considered in accordance with law.

NC: 2025:KHC:729 WP No. 186 of 2025

1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

WRIT PETITION NO. 186 OF 2025 (EXCISE)

BETWEEN:

RAMESH S/O VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO. 3343, 7^TH CROSS, BHOVI COLONY, NEAR SRINIVASA TEMPLE, MANDYA-571 401.

K.T. SHANKAREGOWDA, S/O LATE. THIMMALAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO. 2615, 2^ND CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, MANDYA -571 401.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI G K BHAT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT SUDHA D, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AND:

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571 401.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571 401.

THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, MANDYA RANGE, MANDYA -571 401.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MANJUNATH B, AGA FOR RESPONDENTS)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 02.01.2025 IN NO. DTCR/642/2024-25 PASSED R-1 AS PER ANNX-G.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:729 WP No. 186 of 2025

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri.G.K.Bhat, the learned Senior counsel appearing

for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

The petitioners in this petition are impugning the order cancelling the license in exercise of power under Section 29 of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short 'Act of 1965'). Admittedly, the order is appealable.

Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the impugned order can be questioned before this Court as the authority could not have passed the impugned order under Section 29 of the Act of 1965. Even if it is so, the said contention can be raised before the Appellate Authority. Hence, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to move the Appellate Authority in the manner known to law provided under law.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:729 WP No. 186 of 2025

Time spent in prosecuting this petition shall be

excluded in calculating the limitation period.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of .

Registry to return the certified copy of the petition after retaining xerox copy of the same. It is made clear that nothing is expressed on the merits of the matter. If an appeal is filed as provided under the law, the same shall be considered

in accordance with law.

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40