Disposed

Sri. Naveen Kumar S R v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Apr 2026WP/37301/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by an applicant seeking transfer of a CL9 excise licence; his representation to the excise authorities had gone unattended for nearly two years. Court disposed of the petition directing respondents to consider the representation and pass orders in law within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 2 and 3 directed to consider representation dated 23.06.2025 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within four weeks.

Sri. Naveen Kumar S R Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:18479 WP No. 37301 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.37301 OF 2025 (EXCISE)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI NAVEEN KUMAR .S.R S/O V. SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT MALIYAPPANAHALLI, DODDA KADATURU, KOLAR-563130.

¶10

&PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI MAHESHKIRAN SHETTY S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE OFFICE OF THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER 2^ND FLOOR, TTMC 8A9 BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE (BUD-7) BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-7 (BUD-7), NO.380, <ITTINA CENTRE=, 2^ND FLOOR, 16^TH MAIN, 3^RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560034.

¶17

THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE RANGE 40

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:18479 WP No. 37301 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-7 (BUD-7), NO.380, <ITTINA CENTRE=, 2^ND FLOOR, 16^TH MAIN, 3^RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560034.

¶21

&RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI MANJUNATH B., AGA)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO APPROVE THE PROPOSAL SET BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 SEEKING APPROVAL VIDE INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.EXE/BUD-7/17(B)/V40/102/2023-24 DATED 31.01.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for

¶28

the following prayers:

¶29

<a) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction directing the Respondent No.2 to approve the proposal set by the Respondent No.3 seeking approval vide inter-office communication bearing No. EXE/BUD-7/17(B)/V40/102/2023-24 dated 31.01.2024 vide Annexure-E;

¶30

b) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction directing the Respondents No.2 and 3 to consider the application

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18479 WP No. 37301 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

filed under Rule 17B of the Karnataka Excise (General Conditions of License) Rules, 1967 dated 30.01.2024 vide Annexure-C;

¶34

c) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction directing the Respondents No.2 and 3 to consider the representation given by the Petitioner to the Respondent No.2 dated 23.06.2025 vide Annexure-F;

¶35

d) Issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in favour of the Petitioner by this Hon'ble Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the cases, in the interest of justice and equity.=

¶36

Brief facts:

¶37

The petitioner intended to secure transfer of CL9 licence held by RGV Brewing LLP, which was valid upto 30.06.2030. Pursuant to the negotiation, the petitioner applied for transfer of the licence under Rule 17B of the Karnataka Excise (General Conditions of Licence) Rules, 1967 (<Rules, 1967= for short) by paying requisite fees.

¶38

Respondent No.3 forwarded the proposal for approval to respondent No.2 on 31.01.2024. Despite lapse

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:18479 WP No. 37301 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

of nearly two years and submission of representation dated 23.06.2025, no decision was taken, leading to the filing of the present writ petition.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proposal for transfer has been duly transferred by respondent No.3, necessary fees have been paid and all procedural requirements are complied with and the representation dated 23.06.2025 (Annexure-F) has remained unattended.

¶43

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the proposal could not be considered due to the pending enquiry concerning RGV Brewing LLP. However, the representation of the petitioner would be considered in accordance with law, within a time bound manner.

¶44

Having regard to the submission and the grievance of the petitioner is limited to inaction, the grievance of the petitioner would stand redress if

¶45

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:18479 WP No. 37301 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

necessary direction are issued to the respondent. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

i. The writ petition is disposed of .

¶51

ii. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.06.2025 (Annexure-F), bearing in mind the proposal forwarded by respondent No.3 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶54

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Sri. Naveen Kumar S R v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Naveen Kumar S R v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Hemavathi Vs Sri Kantharaja

H K Venkatakrishnamma Vs Srinivasa

Smt. Bhuvaneshwari Karbari Vs Sri Madolappa

Sri Kotamreddy Venu Gopal Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Ms. Priya Khanna Vs Tree House Apartment Owners Association

Sri Ramesh P Vs the State of Karnataka