IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.38536/2018 (EXCISE) BETWEEN:
SRI K.M.MADHU PRASAD S/O K.C.MADE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT KIRUGAVALU VILLAGE MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571430 ... PETITIONER [BY SRI M.G.RAVISHA, ADV.] AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE IN KARNATAKA, SHANTHINAGAR BUS STOP COMPLEX 2ND FLOOR, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560027 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571401.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571401. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI M.MUNIGANGAPPA, HCGP.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER AND DISPOSE THE REPRESENTATIONS-CUM-OBJECTIONS DATED 08.08.2018 i.e., ANNEXURE-A & B, ON HEAR THE PETITIONER BEFORE PASSING ANY ORDER FOR GRANTING ANY PERMISSION FOR SHIFTING THE OBJECTED CL-2 LICENSE TO THE ANY PLACE OF SY.NO.328/1B, KHATHA NO.238, KIRUGAVALU SANTHEMALA, KIRUGAVALU VILLAGE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner claiming to be a resident of Kirugavalu Village, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District is before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of the representations-cum- objections dated 08.08.2018 and to hear the petitioner before passing any order for granting any permission for shifting the objected CL-2 license to any place of Kirugavalu Gram Panchayath Rural area including objected place of Sy.No.328/1B, Khatha No.238, Kirugavalu Santhemala, Kirugavalu Village.
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that, O.S.No.198/2018 was filed before the competent Civil Court by the Kirugavalu villagers, including the petitioner, objecting for shifting of CL-2 license of the licensee Sri.N.Govindaraju and on the undertaking given before the Court that he has no intention to shift the said licensed wine shop to the objected place, I.A seeking the relief of injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been rejected. However, the said suit is pending for consideration.
3. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot institute parallel proceedings. The writ petition is misconceived, based on the apprehensions of the petitioner that his representations would not be considered by the authorities, no writ can be issued.
Hence, writ petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to resort to appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.