Smt. M. Shobha, Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Smt. M. Shobha, Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed: writ of certiorari issued quashing the endorsements dated 08.08.2025 (Annexures-M and N) issued by the second respondent; mandamus issued directing the first respondent (Excise Commissioner) to accord the petitioner's request within two weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' refusal to renew the petitioner's CL-2 licences, via negative endorsements citing non-existence of quota (Annexure-R8 recording a fixed quota of 878 against 897 existing licences), is legally sustainable. +1 more

Court's answer

The respondents acted illegally in refusing to renew the licence and issuing negative endorsements, notwithstanding collection of the requisite fees, merely by citing a lack of quota.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's licence had not been cancelled or revoked, and the respondent's continued acceptance of the licence fee affirms the subsistence of the licence.

Key takeaways

A writ of certiorari is issued and the endorsements dated 08.08.2025 issued by the second respondent at Annexures-M and N are quashed.ratio¶63
A mandamus is issued directing the first respondent to accord the petitioner's request within two weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order.ratio¶67
The Additional Government Advocate's submission that the Government is auctioning inactive licences was rejected as entirely meritless, there being zero record of inactivity regarding the petitioners' licences.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Jyoti M, J.) allowed a writ petition by the proprietor of two CL-2 excise licences in Bengaluru ('My Drops' and 'Chandana Enterprise'). After this Court's earlier order in W.P. No. 33368/2025 (dated 28.01.2025) directed consideration of her renewal representation, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise forwarded the file to the Excise Commissioner (communication dated 22.05.2025) following payment of requisite and additional licence fees; the first respondent did not process the file, and during pendency negative endorsements dated 08.08.2025 (Annexures M and N) were issued pleading non-existence of quota (Annexure-R8: fixed quota 878 against 897 existing licences). Held: the respondents acted illegally in refusing renewal while retaining the collected fees; the petitioner's licence had not been cancelled or revoked, and continued acceptance of licence fee affirmed its subsistence, so the quota-based reasons did not justify summary disregard of the request. Certiorari issued quashing the endorsements; mandamus to the first respondent to accord the petitioner's request within two weeks of receipt of the certified copy. The State's submission regarding proposed auction of inactive licences was rejected — no record of inactivity concerned the petitioner's licences. (Decided 10-03-2026)

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14175 WP No. 24088 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

WRIT PETITION NO. 24088 OF 2025 (EXCISE)

BETWEEN:

SMT. M. SHOBHA W/O J. MUNNAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT: NO.B-27/A, GM PALYA, NEW THIPPASANDRA POST, BENGALURU-560 075.

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH PRASAD H.N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXCISE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, TTMCA BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING, 2^ND FLOOR, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BUD-5, BENGALURU-560 001.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH B., AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14175 WP No. 24088 of 2025

HC-KAR

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS AT PRINCIPAL BENCH BENGALURU ON 27.02.2026, LISTED FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER AT DHARWAD BENCH THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

CAV ORDER

Sri.Manjunath Prasad. H.N., counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Manjunath B., the Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2, have appeared in person.

The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to process the files forwarded by the second respondent online on CL-2 Licenses of My Drops and Chandana Enterprise, for which the respondents have already collected huge amounts from the petitioner as license renewal fees for year 2022-2025 forthwith without any further loss of time in accordance with law. By amending the writ petition, the petitioner has also sought a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsements dated 08.08.2025 vide AnnexuresM and N and consequently, direct the first respondent to grant prior approval of CL-2 Licenses belonging to the petitioner

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14175 WP No. 24088 of 2025

HC-KAR

pursuant to the recommendations made by the second respondent.

3. The short facts are as follows:

The petitioner is a businesswoman and is doing business such as bars and restaurants, wine shops and petrol bunkers. The petitioner is the proprietor of My Drop's Wine Shop, holding a CL-2 licence situated at No. 202, Whitefield Main Road, Whitefield, Bengaluru. The petitioner is also a proprietor of M/s. Chandana Enterprises having CL-2 licence situated at 35-1-B near Puvvankara Apartments, ITPL Main Road, Munekolalu Maruthahalli-Bengaluru.

The petitioner had submitted a representation on the 20^th day of August 2022, seeking renewal of licences, as the same were not considered, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing a Writ Petition in No.33368/2025. This Court vide order dated 28.01.2025 had directed the second respondent to consider the representation in accordance with the law within four weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of the order. Pursuant to the order, the petitioner, once

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14175 WP No. 24088 of 2025

HC-KAR

again through her counsel, requested the respondents to implement the order passed by this Court.

The Excise Inspector Whitefield, on 28.01.2025, called upon the petitioner to submit the document online and also to make payment relating to the licences. Accordingly, the petitioner paid the requisite license fee and additional license fees and sought permission to pay the shifting fee. The second respondent vide his communication dated 22.05.2025 had sought prior permission from the first respondent to renew the licence of the petitioner. It is the petitioner’s grievance that there is a total inaction on the part of first respondent to process the file. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the negative endorsements are issued. Under these circumstances,

the petitioner has filed this writ petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of writ petition.

Counsel for the respective parties urged several

contentions.

Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decision:

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14175 WP No. 24088 of 2025

HC-KAR

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANOTHER V/S. M/S.OASYS CYBERNATICS PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN SLP (C) NO.6531/2025.

Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers

with care.

The material facts have been sufficiently set forth and do not require further reinstatement. The Respondents have buried a straightforward question of law/fact under a mountain of paperwork. Despite the voluminous nature of the objections, the matter is actually quite simple: the Government has misconstrued the issue, shifting the focus away from the core dispute.

This matter is straightforward: the petitioner’s request to process the file was rejected based on the specified quota ground. As is evident from Annexure-C, this Court directed the Respondent to consider the representation. Pursuant to the order, the second respondent has sought prior permission from the first respondent to renew the license. Due to the first respondent’s inaction regarding the processing of the file, the petitioner's request remains unattended.

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14175 WP No. 24088 of 2025

HC-KAR

Significantly, during the pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent authorities unreasonably issued endorsements dated 08.01.2025, asserting the non-existence of a quota.

It is indicated in Annexure-R8 that the CL-2 license quota is fixed at 878 based on the order dated 30.06.1987; of these, 878 licenses were renewed for the 2024-25 period, while 19 licenses remained suspended before 2024-25. It has also been indicated that there are currently 897 CL-2 licenses in existence, which exceeds the stipulated quota of 878. To be precise, while the fixed quota for CL-2 licenses is 878, the actual number of existing licenses is 897, indicating a surplus of 19.

The respondents have acted illegally by refusing to renew the license and issuing negative endorsements, notwithstanding the collection of the requisite fees, merely by citing a lack of quota. In my view, the reasons provided in the endorsements do not justify a disregard for the petitioner's request. The reasons cited in the impugned endorsements do not justify the summary disregard of the petitioner's request, particularly as the petitioner's licence has not been cancelled or

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14175 WP No. 24088 of 2025

HC-KAR

revoked as of today; furthermore, the respondent continues to accept the license fee, thereby affirming the subsistence of the license.

Given that the Government has misconstrued the core dispute by shifting the focus, as discussed above, this Court finds it appropriate to quash the endorsements and accord the petitioner’s request within two weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

Lastly, AGA submitted that the Government has taken steps to auction the inactive licenses and the matter is sub judice before this Court. Hence, a suitable order may be passed.

The submission is noted with care. As previously noted, the Government is pivoting away from the core controversy with a flawed interpretation; there is zero record of inactivity regarding the petitioners' licenses, rendering the submission entirely meritless.

For the foregoing reasons, the Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The endorsements dated 08.08.2025 issued by the

8 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14175 WP No. 24088 of 2025

HC-KAR

second respondent at Annexures- M and N are quashed. A mandamus is ordered directing the first respondent to accord the petitioner’s request within two weeks from the receipt of

the certified copy of this order.

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

Sd/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

MRP

LIST NO.: 19 SL NO.: 1