IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.No.1635/2019 (EXCISE) BETWEEN:
N.Mohan, S/o T.Nagaraja, Aged about 47 years, No.9/1, 15th Cross, Subbaraju Layout, Lakkasandra, Bangalore – 560 030. … PETITIONER (By Sri B.Nagarajan, Adv.) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Finance Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001.
2. The Commissioner of Excise, State Excise Department, 2nd Floor, TTMC ‘A’ Block, BMTC Complex, Shanthi Nagar, Bangalore – 560 027.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban Dist., Kandhaya Bhavana, Bangalore – 560 001. … RESPONDENTS (By Sri M.Munigangappa, HCGP) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the impugned order of R-3 dated 12.02.2018 at Annexure-A in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.6924/2012 dated 08.02.2016 at Annexure-F and in the light of the decision of this Court in R.P.No.3/2015 dated 25.08.2015 at Annexure-G and consequently, direct R-2 to accord sanction to R-3 for granting CL-2 license to the petitioner, subject to payment of prescribed license fee.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER 1. The petitioner has challenged the order of respondent No.3 dated 12.02.2018, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for grant of CL-2 & CL-9 license has been rejected.
2. It is prima facie evident that the petitioner has approached this Court invoking the writ jurisdiction without exhausting the alternative and efficacious remedy of statutory appeal available under Section 61 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (‘Act’, for short).
3. It is well settled legal principle that ordinarily, no writ petition is maintainable, circumventing the alternative remedy available under the Act for adjudication of the dispute in an effective manner. On this ground alone, the writ petition is not maintainable and stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek redressal of his grievance before the appropriate forum, if so advised.
4. If such an appeal is preferred under Section 61 of the Act, the same shall be considered by the Appellate Authority on merits, without objecting to the period of limitation.
Sd/- JUDGE KK