IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.No.50921/2019 (EXCISE) BETWEEN:
SHRI K.SRINIVASAIAH S/O. KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS CL-9 LICENSEE R/AT 89, 12TH CROSS MARENAHALLI MAIN ROAD VIJAYANAGARA, BANGALORE – 40. …PETITIONER (BY SRI B.N.SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE O/O. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE 2ND FLOOR, TTMC “A” BLOCK BMTC COMPLEX, SHANTHI NAGAR BANGALORE – 560 027 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (EXCISE) O/O. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE BANGALORE WEST URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE – 560 002 …RESPONDENTS (BY MS. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AS PER ANNEXURE – A IS ILLEGAL AND UNENFORCEABLE IN LAW AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has assailed the order dated 09.07.2019 issued by respondent No.2 whereby the petitioner has been directed to shift the business premises.
2. The petitioner is a CL-9 Licensee. It is submitted that in terms of the order dated 30.06.2019, he got shifted the business from No.16/1, Kasturba Nagar, Hosakkerihalli, Banglaore to the present premises at Sy.No.38/2, Site No.7, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Kodigahalli Village Post. The said order dated 30.06.2019 was passed after holding a detailed enquiry by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise and after obtaining the reports from the concerned authorities in accordance with Rule 23 of the Karnataka Excise Licence (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 (‘Rules’ for short). However, respondent No.2 has issued the impugned order within a period of 9 days calling upon the petitioner to shift from the said premises to any other place sans issuing any notice or holding any enquiry much against the provisions of the Rule 5(4)(a) of the Rules.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Excise Commissioner in Appeal No.50/2019 along with an application seeking for stay of the impugned order, but the Appellate authority without considering the interim application for stay is adjourning the matter since last three months on untenable grounds.
4. Learned Counsel reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition as aforesaid would submit that the interference of this Court is warranted in the circumstances of the case.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that in view of the pendency of the appeal before the competent authority no parallel proceedings could be maintainable, hence, the writ petition deserves to be rejected.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perusing the material on record, it is evident that the order dated 30.06.2019 was passed by respondent No.2 after holding an enquiry in accordance with Rule 5(4)(a) of the Rules. Thereafter, within a short period of 9 days without assigning any reason, the order impugned has been issued directing the petitioner to shift the business premises to any other place, which is hit by the principles of natural justice.
7. In the circumstances, it is obligatory on the part of the respondent No.1, the appellate authority to consider the application seeking for interim order of stay and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Procrastination of the matter would not be the solution in dispensation of justice more particularly when the redressal of the grievances of the petitioner has to be addressed keeping in mind the principles of natural justice.
8. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No.1 to consider the interim application submitted by the petitioner in appeal No.50/2019 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in an expedite manner after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties, till such a decision is taken, the order impugned dated 09.07.2019 at Annexure – A shall not be enforced.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY