IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.No.40825/2018 (EXCISE) BETWEEN :
Mr. ROBERT D’ SOUZA S/O SIMON D’ SOUZA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, HOTEL SIMON’S COMFORT R/O KUNDAPURA KASABA KUNDAPURA TALUK - 576 201 UDUPI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI KALEEMULLAH SHARIFF, ADV.) AND :
1. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER 2ND FLOOR, T.T.M.C. A BLOCK, B.M.T.C. BUILDING SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, UDUPI - 576 101 UDUPI DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.JYOTHI M., AGA.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 16.04.2018 GIVEN TO R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE R-2 DATED 14.06.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-H ADDRESSED TO R-1 BY ISSUING A WRIT OF MANDAMUS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner contends that he runs a Hotel, Boarding and Lodging under the name and style M/s Hotel Saimon’s Comforts at Kundapura. The petitioner had applied for grant of CL-7 licence before the respondent No.1. Certain complaints were filed by the persons residing in the locality. It is contended that the said complaints were withdrawn and the same has been confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise by letter dated 15.3.2018 addressed to the respondent No.1. Thereafter, requests were made by the petitioner for grant of CL-7 licence but in vain.
2. It transpires that a representation dated 16.4.2018 was submitted before the Excise Commissioner. Pursuant to the representation made by the petitioner, 1st respondent by letter dated 10/14-5-2018 requested the 2nd respondent to submit a report. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 by letter dated 14.6.2018 has furnished a report to respondent No.1 and sought for orders for grant of CL-7 licence.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that no decision has been taken by the respondent No.1 so far. Hence, this writ petition.
4. In the circumstances, it is obligatory on the part of respondent No.1 to take a decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner. The same having not been done, this Court is of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would be sub-served in directing the respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 16.4.2018 submitted by the petitioner as per Annexure-E to the writ petition and the recommendation of the respondent No.2 dated 14.06.2018 at Annexure-H and take a decision in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in an expedite manner preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Ordered accordingly.
Writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr: