Swamy Vivekananda High School Vs State of Karnataka

SWAMY VIVEKANANDA HIGH SCHOOL KUNTUR VILLAGE, ALAGUR HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. BEING MANAGED BY: SRI MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY VIDYA SAMSTHE (REGD.) A TRUST REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN TRUST HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: J. BYADRALLI VILLAGE, VIRUPAKSHAPURA HOBLI, THE SECRATARY SRI. RAMACHANDRA, S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT J. BYADARAHALLI, VIRUPAKSHAPURA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, BANGALORE SOUTH DISTRICT-562138. …PETITIONER (BY SRI T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE,

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:20659 WP No. 34176 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

ASHOK NAGAR

¶18

MANDYA DISTRICT – 571401.

¶19

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE. MALVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571430.

¶20

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYATH MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571430.

¶21

THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, MALVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571430.

¶22

BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571430.

¶23

PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, LINGAPATTANA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571430.

¶24

K.P. LAKSHMAN RAO S/O DEVRAJ AGED MAJOR R/AT PETE BEEDI NORTH TALUK OFFICE ROAD, NELAMANGALA TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI MANJUNATH B., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3, R-5 & R-6; SRI J.M. ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; SRI B.S. GAUTHAM, ADVOCATE FOR R-8; NOTICE TO R-7 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FROM PROCESSING THE APPLICATION DATED 02.07.2025 BEARING NO.2473 AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:20659 WP No. 34176 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The present writ petition is filed by the educational institution seeking a writ of prohibition and mandamus to restrain the respondent authorities from processing or granting CL7 excise licence in favour of respondent No. 8 for establishment of a bar/ liquor shop in the vicinity of the petitioner school.

¶34

BRIEF FACTS:

¶35

The petitioner is a high school established in the year 1992 and is being run by the registered trust in Kuntur Village, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 8 has submitted an application on 02.07.2025 (Annexure- A) seeking grant of CL7 licence for the Excise year 2025-26 to establish a liquor shop in Sy. No. 45/23 of the said village. The petitioner contends that the proposed premises is situated

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20659 WP No. 34176 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

within a distance of 45 meters from the school and therefore violates Rule 5 of the Karnataka Excise (General Conditions of Licence) Rules, 1967 (“the Rules, 1967” for short) which prescribes a minimum distance of 100 meters from educational institution. The petitioner claims to have submitted several representations objecting to the grant of licence, but apprehends that the authorities are proceeding with the application.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the proposed liquor shop is within 45 meters of the school and violates the statutory restriction under Rule 5. The respondents are proceeding to consider their application, despite objection by the petitioner. It is contended that the establishment of a liquor shop near a school would adversely affect students and educational environment and hence interference by this Court is sought to restrain the authorities.

¶40

The learned AGA for the respondent-State states that the Writ Petition is premature and liable to be

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20659 WP No. 34176 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

dismissed. Respondent No. 8 has not submitted a valid application under Rule 4 of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1968 (“the Rules, 1968” for short). The requisite licence fee and additional fee have not been paid. Therefore, the application is not complete. The process of consideration has not commenced and the distance between the school and the proposed premises is yet to be determined by the competent authority. It is contended that the writ of prohibition is not maintainable against administrative action at a preliminary stage.

¶44

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

¶45

Annexure-A discloses that respondent No. 8 has submitted an application dated 02.07.2025 seeking grant of CL7 licence. However, as specifically contended by the respondent the said application is still in the stage of consideration whether statutory requirements are fulfilled or not. The grant of licence under Excise law is a multistage statutory process which involves submissions of

¶46

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:20659 WP No. 34176 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

valid applications, scrutiny, verification and compliance with the conditions including Rule 5 of the Rules, 1967 relating to distance. At this stage, the process has not yet been matured to a stage where any decision affecting the rights of the petitioner has been taken. The contention regarding violation of Rule 5 is essentially a question of fact requiring determination of actual distance through appropriate measurement and verification by the competent authority. The relief sought in the writ petition in the nature of writ of prohibition is misconceived inasmuch as the said writ ordinarily lies against the judicial or quasi-judicial authorities and not against the administrative processing of an application. It is well settled that the Writ Petition cannot be invoked at an anticipatory stage, particularly when statutory authority has not yet taken any final decision.

¶49

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Writ Petition is premature and

¶50

7 -

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:20659 WP No. 34176 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

does not warrant interference at this stage. Accordingly,

¶54

the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

(i) The Writ Petition stands dismissed. (ii) It is, however observed that the respondent authority shall consider the application submitted by respondent No. 8 strictly in accordance with law and ensure compliance with Rule 5 of the Karnataka Excise (General Conditions of Licences) Rules, 1967.

¶57