Dismissed¶32

R S Babu Naidu v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2025WP/30985/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-Judge order of the High Court of Karnataka (K.S. Hemalekha, J.), 16-10-2025, WP No. 30985 of 2025 (EXCISE), NC: 2025:KHC:41445. Keywords: writ of prohibition; Article 226 Constitution of India; Section 21 Karnataka Excise Act, 1965; CL-2 liquor licence; retail sale of liquor; Theerthodhbhava at Talakaveri; Kodagu District; Deputy Commissioner prohibitory order dated 15.10.2025; closure of liquor and wine shops on 17.10.2025 from 06.00 a.m. to midnight; writ petition dismissed as infructuous; liberty to submit representation/reply to be considered in accordance with law. No precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to submit a representation or reply to respondent No.3 in response to the notification, to be considered in accordance with law. ¶32

R S Babu Naidu Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to submit a representation or reply to respondent No.3 in response to the notification, to be considered in accordance with law.

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of prohibition can be issued directing respondent No.3 (Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu District) not to issue any order restraining or prohibiting the sale of liquor and wines on 16.10.2025 and 17.10.2025 in the entire Kodagu District.

¶31

Court's answer

Since respondent No.3 had already passed the prohibitory order on 15.10.2025 under Section 21 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, the writ petition seeking to prohibit respondent No.3 from issuing such an order had become infructuous, and the writ petition was accordingly dismissed as infructuous.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to submit a representation or reply to respondent No.3 in response to the notification; if such a representation/reply is made, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.

¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (EXCISE) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by a CL-2 licence holder engaged in retail sale of liquor in Kodagu District, seeking a writ of prohibition directing respondent No.3, Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu District, not to issue any order restraining or prohibiting the sale of liquor and wines on 16.10.2025 and 17.10.2025 (occasion of Theerthodhbhava at Talakaveri) in the entire Kodagu District. The learned AAG informed the Court that on 15.10.2025 respondent No.3 had already passed a prohibitory order invoking Section 21 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, directing that no liquor or wine shops shall operate on 17.10.2025 from morning 06.00 a.m. till midnight 12.00 p.m. Holding the petition to have become infrunctuous in view of the order already issued, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, reserving liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation or reply to respondent No.3 in response to the notification, which shall be considered in accordance with law. Decided on 16-10-2025 by K.S. Hemalekha, J. (NC: 2025:KHC:41445).

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:41445 WP No. 30985 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.30985 OF 2025 (EXCISE)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

R.S. BABU NAIDU S/O LATE SEETHARAM, AGED 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.2, SAJJAN RAO ROAD, NEAR BASAPPA CIRCLE, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-04. …PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI KARUMBAIAH T.A., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHIEF SECRETARY,

¶13

VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY EXCISE DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KODAGU DISTRICT, MADIKERI, KODAGU-571201.

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (EXCISE) KODAGU DISTRICT, MADIKERI, KODAGU-571201. …RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI BHANUPRAKASH, AAG A/W SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:41445 WP No. 30985 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS MORE PARTICULARLY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT PROHIBITING HIM TO PASS ANY ORDER RESTRAINING AND PROHIBITING TO SELL LIQUOR AND WINES ON 16.10.2025 AND ON 17.10.2025 IN ENTIRE KODAGU DISTRICT AND IT MAY BE RESTRICTED TO THE LOCAL LIMITS OF BHAGAMANDALA AND THALAKAVERY AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AAG for the respondents.

¶27

The petitioner claims to be a CL-2 licence holder engaged in retail sale of liquor in the Kodagu District. The grievance urged by the petitioner is that, every year, during the occasion of Theerthodhbhava at Talakaveri, respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu District, issues an order prohibiting the sale of liquor within a particular radius for one or two days. The petitioner apprehends that similar order may also be issued for the forthcoming Theerthodhbhava scheduled on 17.10.2025.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41445 WP No. 30985 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

However, he is given to understand from the paper publication that respondent No.3 intends to pass an order restraining and prohibiting the sale of liquor and wines on 16.10.2025 and 17.10.2025 throughout the Kodagu District.

¶31

The petitioner in this writ petition seeks a writ of prohibition directing respondent No.3, not to issue any order restraining or prohibiting the sale of liquor and wines on 16.10.2025 and 17.10.2025 in entire Kodugu District.

¶32

Learned AAG brings to the notice of this Court that by invoking Section 21 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, on 15.10.2025, respondent No.3 has passed a prohibitory order, directing that no liquor or wine shops shall operate on 17.10.2025 from morning 06.00 a.m. till midnight 12.00 p.m. In view of the said order having already been issued, the present writ petition seeking to prohibit respondent No.3 from issuing such an order has become infructuous. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, liberty is reserved

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:41445 WP No. 30985 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

to the petitioner to submit a representation or reply to respondent No.3 in response to the notification, and if such a representation / reply is made, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶39

AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

R S Babu Naidu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R S Babu Naidu v. State of Karnataka

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

Smt Kempamma R Vs State of Karnataka

Smt J Shantha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.L.M.Vasudeva Murthy Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Smt Chikka Ammaiah Vs Smt Marakka

Sri Munirajappa Vs State of Karnataka

D Govind Raj Vs the State of Karnataka