Disposed¶48

Sri Sanjay Asrani v. Deputy Commissioner of Excise

Karnataka HC9 Mar 2026WP/6120/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka, WP No. 6120 of 2026 (Excise), Justice K.S. Hemalekha, 09.03.2026 — CL-9 liquor licence; excise appearance notice dated 19.01.2026 by Deputy Commissioner of Excise BUD-1; withdrawal of objector's complaint; prematurity of writ petition; no final adverse order passed; opportunity to place objections before competent authority; Articles 226 and 227; petition disposed of with reserved liberty; Bengaluru Urban District; writ intervention deferred at notice stage.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to file his objections before the competent authority. ¶48

Sri Sanjay Asrani Vs Deputy Commissioner of Excise — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to file his objections before the competent authority.

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the notice dated 19.01.2026 is premature and whether the Court should interfere at this stage when no final order adverse to the petitioner has been passed. +1 more

¶41

Court's answer

The impugned communication is only a notice issued by the competent authority calling upon the petitioner to appear before it, and by itself does not determine any rights of the petitioner.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

It is open for the petitioner to place all his objections, including the contention that the complainant had already withdrawn the objections, before the competent authority.

¶43

Key takeaways

Interference at this stage is not warranted; however, the petitioner ought to be accorded an opportunity to place his objection before the competent authority, and accordingly the writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file his objections before the competent authority.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the holder of a CL-9 liquor licence at Yelahanka, Bengaluru, challenging a notice dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure-E) issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Bengaluru Urban District-1, directing him to appear before the authority in proceedings concerning the licence, even though the objector (Appaji G.) had withdrawn his objection dated 09.10.2023 by communication dated 05.12.2023. The petitioner argued the notice was unsustainable, did not disclose the nature of the proceedings, and was arbitrary and without jurisdiction; the State contended the notice merely sought the petitioner's appearance, no final adverse order had been passed, and the petition was premature. Holding that the notice by itself determined no rights of the petitioner and that interference at that stage was not warranted, the Court disposed of the petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file his objections before the competent authority.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:14115 WP No. 6120 of 2026

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

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

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.6120 OF 2026 (EXCISE)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI SANJAY ASRANI S/O RAGHULAL ASRANI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.2, AUM VILLA APARTMENTS, 41 BENSON, B CROSS ROAD, BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU–560 046.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI MANIKANTA H.B., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-1 (BUD-1), NO.02, 3^RD FLOOR, 3^RD CROSS, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, YESHWANTHAPURA INDUSTRIAL SUBURB,

¶15

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

¶16

BENGALURU–560 022.

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU–560 009.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI MANJUNATH B., AGA)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT / RESPONDENTS IN PROCEEDINGS NOTICE BEARING NO.EXE/BUD1/VA.NO.1/BATHAMA/DOORU/04/2023-24 DATED 19.01.2026 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:14115 WP No. 6120 of 2026

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘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 called in question the notice dated

¶28

19.01.2026 issued by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Bengaluru Urban District-1 proceedings bearing No.EXE/BUD-1/V-1/CL-

¶29

9/Bhatam/Dooru/04/2023-24 (Annexure-E), whereby the petitioner has been directed to appear before the authority in connection with certain proceedings initiated against the CL-9 licence held by the petitioner.

¶30

Brief facts:

¶31

The petitioner claims to be the holder of CL-9 licence in respect of a liquor shop situated at No.2052/B, 3^rd stage Yelahanka, Bengaluru. It is stated that one Appaji G. had earlier submitted an objection dated 09.10.2023 opposing the shifting of petitioner's CL-9 shop.

¶32

Subsequently, the said objector is stated to have

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:14115 WP No. 6120 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

withdrawn the objection by a written communication dated 05.12.2023. Despite the withdrawal of the objection, respondent No.1 issued the impugned notice dated 19.01.2026 calling upon the petitioner to appear before the authority on 09.02.2026. Aggrieved by the issuance of the said notice, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the impugned notice is only unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the very complaint on the basis of which the proceedings have been initiated had already been withdrawn by the complainant, and therefore the respondent could not have proceeded further in the matter. It is further submitted that the impugned notice does not disclose the nature of proceedings and initiation of such proceedings is arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Hence prays that the impugned notice and the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto be quashed.

¶37

Per contra , learned Additional Government

¶38

Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14115 WP No. 6120 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

impugned notice is only a notice, calling upon the petitioner to appear before the competent authority and no final order adverse to the petitioner has been passed. It is submitted that the petitioner had an opportunity to place all his objection and explanation before the authority and that the writ petition is premature and the petitioner may be relegated to participate in the proceedings before the competent authority.

¶42

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

¶43

It is evident that the impugned communication is only a notice issued by the competent authority calling upon the petitioner to appear before it in connection with the proceedings initiated under relevant provisions governing the CL-9 licence. That said notice by itself does not determine any rights of the petitioner. It is open for the petitioner to place all his objections, including the contention that the complainant had already withdrawn the objections, before the competent authority.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:14115 WP No. 6120 of 2026

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

In the circumstances, this Court is of the view

¶48

that interference at this stage is not warranted. However, the petitioner ought to be accorded an opportunity to place his objection before the competent authority. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file his objections before the competent authority.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶51

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Sri Sanjay Asrani v. Deputy Commissioner of Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sanjay Asrani v. Deputy Commissioner of Excise

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

Venkataramanappa Vs Sri Govindaraju

Smt. a. Rajeshwari Vs Bengaluru Development Authority

Jayamma Vs Smt Manjula

Mr.M.Anjinappa Vs State of Karnataka

B.v.Ashok Vs the Karnatka State Transport Authority

Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (Bescom) Vs Ministry of Power