P R Kumar @ D Prasanna Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26/12/2022 IN NO.EXE/BEM(8)-/VA-47/SA.OOO/CL9/15/2021-22 AS PER ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to

¶28

quash the order dated 26.12.2022 passed by respondent No.4, and for a writ of mandamus directing renewal of the licence in Form CL9 in respect of the premises No.164:263, Konappana Agrahara, Hosur Road, Bengaluru, by reviving the same from the year 20092010 onwards.

¶29

Heard Sri G.K. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajkumar M, learned HCGP, for the respondents.

¶30

BRIEF FACTS

¶31

The petitioner claims to be the licensee of Form CL-9 licence initially granted at Doddanagamangala,

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:39952 WP No. 1885 of 2023

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Bengaluru. The business was discontinued from 19931994 to 1998-1999, and thereafter, on his representation, respondent No.4 permitted shifting the business to Konpanna Agrahara, Hosur Road, by order dated 04.02.1999 issued with prior sanction of respondent No.2Excise Commissioner dated 02.02.1999 and a fresh licence was issued in Form CL9 on 30.06.2007. Subsequently, the Excise Commissioner, by letter dated 07.07.2008, forwarded a complaint alleging that one Sri D. Prasanna Kumar had allegedly continued business in the name of P.R. Kumar by creating false documents, even though the original licence stood in the name of P.R. Kumar and the Bar operations had been discontinued since 1996. On enquiry, the Inspector of Excise, Koramangala Range, by reports dated 28.07.2008 and 03.06.2009, stated that though the license stood in the name of P.R. Kumar, the photograph affixed was that of D. Prasanna Kumar, son of L.C. Dhananjaya. The petitioner claimed both names referred to the same person. However, verification of his

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:39952 WP No. 1885 of 2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

SSLC marks card revealed his date of birth as 22.03.1989,

¶38

implying he would have been seven years when the licence was granted. The Inspector thus concluded that P.R. Kumar and D. Prasanna Kumar were distinct persons and recommended action against the petitioner. Based on the report, the petitioner was issued with the notices dated 22.06.2009, 24.07.2009 and 30.12.2009, calling upon him to explain how he could hold a licence obtained at such an early age. As he failed to furnish satisfactory explanation, the licensing authority refused renewal of CL9 licence for 2009-10, vide endorsement dated 24.05.2010, holding that he had not proved the identity or continuity of licence. Despite the rejection, the petitioner continued to submit representation and even filed W.P. No.53941/2017, which was dismissed by this Court on 29.08.2019, with a direction to the authorities to pass a speaking order on his representation. Following administrative bifurcation and delegation of powers by Government Notifications dated 08.11.2017 and

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:39952 WP No. 1885 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

29.05.2020, the Deputy Commissioner of Exciserespondent No.4, after notice and hearing, passed the impugned order dated 26.12.2022 again rejecting renewal. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that the rejection is arbitrary and that the authority erred in doubting his identity solely based on his date of birth and minor discrepancy in records, despite his production of SSLC marks card, Aadhar and PAN cards.

¶43

Learned AGA submits that the petitioner has failed to establish that P.R. Kumar and D. Prasanna Kumar are the same person and that, given the age discrepancy, it is impossible that the petitioner held the original licence. The license expired long back and cannot be revived after more than a decade.

¶44

This Court has considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record.

¶45

On perusal of the record, it is evident that during enquiry before respondent No. 4, the petitioner produced SSLC marks card, Aadhar and PAN documents, but no

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:39952 WP No. 1885 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

material to establish his claim as the original licensee P.R.

¶49

Kumar. The name of the licensee (P.R. Kumar) differs from that in his original documents (D. Prasanna Kumar), and even the date of birth differ, 1989 in Aadhar and 1985 in PAN. These inconsistency coupled with the earlier finding that he could have been a minor when the license was first issued, justify the conclusion reached by the authority.

¶50

The impugned order dated 26.12.2022 passed by respondent No. 4 is reasoned and speaking order, the petitioner has not produced any credible evidence to prove his identity as the original licensee holder to warrant interference. Accordingly the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶53

CKL

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

P R Kumar @ D Prasanna Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P R Kumar @ D Prasanna Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Devarajamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Jagadguru Murugarajendra Bruhan Mutta Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Laxmamma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmi Vs the Deputy General Manager

Smt Akkayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. a Somashekar Vs the State of Karnataka