IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA W.P.NO.57999 OF 2017 (EXCISE) BETWEEN M/S. CHEERS GARDEN PARADISE BAR AND RESTAURANT No.81, GADDIGE ROAD NEAR SANTHE MAIDANA BILIKERA VILLAGE, HOSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI G.R.CHANNAKESHAVA S/O RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT No.73, 2ND MAIN VIJAYANAGARA 1ST STAGE MYSORE-560003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI JAYAKEERTHI, ADV FOR SRI RAMESHA.G.P, ADV) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (REVENUE), MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE-570001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (EXCISE), MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE-570001. …RESPONDENTS (REP BY SRI J.M.UMESH MURTHY, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT No.1 TO PASS ORDERS UPON THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF CL-9 LICENSE FOR THE EXCISE YEAR 2017-18 AS PER ANNEXURE-B OF THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO BAR AND RESTAURANT IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF CHEERS GARDEN PARADISE BAR AND RESTAURANT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING O R D E R Petitioner filed the present writ petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Deputy Commissioner of Mysuru District (Revenue) to consider the application for renewal of CL 9 licence for the excise year 2017-18 as per Annexure-B.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the holder of CL 9 Excise licence and has been running business of bar and restaurant at Bannimantapa Layout, Mysuru and has remitted Rs.3,45,000/- towards prescribed fee for shifting. By order dated 30.06.2017 the CL-9 premises of the petitioner was shifted as per the request after confirming that the place is not in any objectionable place under the provisions of the Act and Rules. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation for renewal of licence for the excise year 2017-18 which commences from 01.07.2017 to end on 30.06.2018 and remitted renewal fee of Rs.4,60,000/-.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that inspite of fulfilling all the conditions and remitting the prescribed fee within the time under Rule 5A, the Deputy Commissioner has not considered nor passed any orders. Therefore, he filed an appeal before the Excise Commissioner in Karnataka in Appeal No.ECS 40 APP 2017 under Section 61(2) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. The Excise Commissioner after hearing both the parties by its order dated 17.8.2017 allowed the appeal setting aside the endorsement issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District, Mysuru and remanded the matter to the respondent to reconsider the renewal application of the appellant for the year 2017-18 as per the Rules after providing an opportunity of hearing to he appellant and the objectors. Inspite of the said orders passed, the Deputy Commissioner has not proceeded to consider the application as per Annexure-B. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties to lis.
5. Sri Jayakeerthi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition has contended that inspite of the direction issued by the Commissioner of Excise/Appellate Authority by order dated 17.08.2017 directing to reconsider the renewal application for the year 2017- 2018 till today, the Deputy Commissioner has not considered nor passed any orders. Therefore, petitioner has unnecessarily driven before this Court. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition.
6. Per contra, Sri Umesh Murthy, learned HCGP on instructions submits that the Deputy Commissioner will consider Annexure-B in terms of the orders passed by the Appellate Authority dated 18.7.2017 and pass orders within the reasonable period of two months.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has been running CL9 licence issued by the competent authority under the provisions of the Excise Act and Rules. It is also not in dispute that the he has filed renewal application as long as on 29.6.2017. On the basis of the endorsement issued he has approached this Court and this Court by order dated 25.7.2017 dismissed the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy before the Excise Commissioner under Section 61(2) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.
8. It is also not in dispute that the Excise Commissioner after hearing both the parties by its order dated 17.08.2017 at Annexure-E allowed the appeal and set aside the endorsement issued by the Deputy Commissioner and remanded the matter to re- consider the renewal application of the petitioner for the excise year 2017-18 as per the Rules after hearing both the parties to the lis. It is the duty of the Deputy Commissioner to follow the direction issued by the Appellate Authority. Inspite of the order passed, the Deputy Commissioner has not considered the renewal application. Therefore, petitioner has driven before this Court. Therefore, it is a fit case to issue writ of mandamus as prayed for in the writ petition.
9. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The writ of mandamus is issued directing the Deputy Commissioner/1st respondent, to consider the application for renewal of CL9 licence for the year 2017-18 in terms of the orders passed by the Excise Commissioner dated 17.8.2017 made in Appeal No.ECS 40 APP 2017 if not already considered and pass an order within a reasonable period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE KLY/