IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.5429 OF 2019 (EXCISE) BETWEEN:
THE ATRIUM BOUTIQUE HOTEL A UNIT OF RAMANA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 NO.110/1A1, BELAVATHA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK-570 010 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR M.KRISHNADAS PURANIK S/O.RAMAKRISHNA PURANIK AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS (BY SRI.MOHAN BHAT, ADV.) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE IN KARNATAKA NO.27, TTMC ‘A’ BLOCK 2ND FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE-570 010 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE-570 010 … PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V.SREENIDHI, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 11/12-12-2018 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL ENDORSEMENT DATED: 14.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER In the instant petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 11/12.12.2018 passed by the 1st respondent in No.ECI/50/IML /MYSORE/CL-7/2018-19 vide Annexure-E and the consequential endorsement dated 14.12.2018 in No.EYS/IML/VA-1/CL-7/96/2018-
19 issued by the third respondent vide Annexure-F;
(b) Consequently issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to grant CL-7 license in favour of the petitioner for the Excise Year 20s18-19 as sought for;
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Annexure-E dated 11/12.12.2018, respondent No.1 has not taken note of the communication of the Government to the 1st respondent dated 31.8.2018 (Annexure-B) and further recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise dated 30.11.2018. Therefore, there is total non application of mind in passing Annexure-E by the 1st respondent.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents on instructions submitted that in respect of issuance of CL-7 license in favour of the petitioner, he has to fulfill the criteria laid down in the Supreme Court decision in the case of Civil Appeal Nos.12164- 12166/2016 dated 15.12.2016 and 31.3.2017.
Pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court, Government has issued a directions to the 1st respondent on 31.8.2018. Even though in Annexure-E, there is no reference ‘whether petitioner has fulfill the criteria stated in the Supreme Court decision or not?’ Petitioner has to satisfy the criteria/conditions imposed in the decision of the Supreme Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Crux of the present petition is ‘Whether Annexure-E ‘dated 11/12.12.2018 passed by the 1st respondent is in order or not?’ 6. 1st respondent has not taken note of the communication of the Government dated 31.8.2018 and further recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner that petitioner had fulfill the requisite criteria for the purpose of issuance of CL-7 license. That apart, 1st respondent is required to reconsider the petitioner’s grievance while taking two decisions of the Supreme Court r/w Government communication dated 31.8.2018 and Recommendation of Deputy Commissioner of Excise.
7. Accordingly, Annexures-E and F dated11/12.12.2018 and 14.12.2018 respectively are set aside. Writ petitions stands allowed directing the Commissioner of Excise for fresh consideration of petitioner’s grievance in the light of Supreme Court decision cited supra r/w Government Communication dated 31.8.2018 and Deputy Commissioner of Excise recommendation. Such speaking order shall be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE BS