Allowed

Sri Trilok Chandar v. the Deputy Commissioner of Excise

Karnataka HC23 Mar 2026WP/8252/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-bench writ petition concerned the refusal of the Excise Department to consider the petitioner's representations for shifting his liquor license. The High Court of Karnataka issued a mandamus directing the authorities to decide the matter within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued directing respondents to consider representations dated 26.09.2025 and 20.02.2026 and pass orders within four weeks.

Sri Trilok Chandar Vs the Deputy… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:16146 WP No. 8252 of 2026

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 8252 OF 2026 (EXCISE-)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI TRILOK CHANDAR S/O SUGUNANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, "M/S KARNATAKA WINES", SURVEY NO. 234/2, KHATA NO. 260, PEELAVARA VILLAGE, SRINIVASANDRA PANCHAYAT, K.G.F. TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563101.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI M C JAYAKIRTHI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563101.

¶15

THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, BANGARPET ZONE, BANGARPET, KOLAR DISTRICT-563101.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI MANJUNATH B., AGA)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO: A) ISSUE A WRIT

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:16146 WP No. 8252 of 2026

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER AND DISPOSE OF THE PETITIONERS REPRESENTATION DATED 26.09.2025 AND REPRESENTATION DATED 22.02.2026 AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND ANNEXURE-E GIVEN TO THE RESPONDENTS WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME 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

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the following relief:

¶27

a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other direction directing the Respondents to consider and dispose of the Petitioner's representation dated 26.09.2025 and representation dated 20.02.2026 as per Annexure-D and Annexure-E given to the Respondents within a reasonable time.

¶28

B) Pass such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶29

Learned AGA accepts notice for the respondents.

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:16146 WP No. 8252 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶33

petitioner and the learned AGA appearing for the respondents.

¶34

The petitioner is the proprietor of "Karnataka Wines" and states that he holds a valid CL-2 license issued by the Excise Department, Government of Karnataka and he is carrying on the Liquor vending business in the licensed premises in accordance with the licence conditions. Due to lack of adequate business at the existing premises and resulting hardship, the petitioner intended to shift the licensed premises to another location at Property No. 990 situated at Karahalli Village, Karahalli Panchayat, Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar District. Accordingly, petitioner submitted representations dated 26.09.2025 (Annexure-D) and dated 20.02.2006 (Annexure- E).

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the representations being submitted the authorities have failed to consider the same despite the

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:16146 WP No. 8252 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

lapse of more than six months thereby compelling the

¶40

petitioner to approach this Court in this Writ Petition.

¶41

6. Per contra , learned AGA for the respondents

¶42

submits that the representations submitted by the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law within a time bound manner.

¶43

Having regard to the submissions made and

¶44

that the grievance of the petitioner is limited to nonconsideration of the representations, necessary direction is warranted. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) Writ petition is disposed of .

¶47

(ii) A mandamus is issued. Respondents are

¶48

directed to consider the petitioner's representations dated 26.09.2025 and 20.02.2026 (Annexure-D & E)

¶49

and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law,

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:16146 WP No. 8252 of 2026

¶51

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

within a period of Four (4) weeks from the date of

¶54

receipt of the copy of this order.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶57

TSN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Sri Trilok Chandar v. the Deputy Commissioner of Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Trilok Chandar v. the Deputy Commissioner of Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri N Satish Vs Sri Narasimhaiah O

Yoganatha Rao Vs Sri. Krishnoji Rao

B H Nischith Shetty Vs Sri B a Anil

Shri. Ramesh Vs Sri. B. H. Jayaram

The Employees State Insurance Corporation, Vs M/S Harsha Wheel Movers Pvt. Ltd.

Sri N D Jayadevappa Vs State of Karnataka