IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.2602/2017 (EXCISE) BETWEEN:
SRI. N. SOMASHEKAR S/O NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS CL-9 LICENSEE OCCUPATION BUSINESS No.60/515 & 61/516 KARNATAKA BAR AND RESTAURANT SANTHE BEDI, ANEKAL ... PETITIONER [BY SRI B.N.SHETTY, ADV., FOR SRI. RAMESHA G.P. ADV.,) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT (SOUTH) POORNIMA COMPLEX J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE IN KARNATAKA 2ND FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING ‘A’ BLOCK, BMTC SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027.
…RESPONDENTS [BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECRODS FROM RESPONDENTS AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE APPEAL No.587/2012 DATED 30.04.2016 ISSUED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE AT ANNEXURE – A AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.587/2012 dated 30.04.2016 whereby the order passed by the First Appellate Authority dated 15.06.2012 and the order dated 17.03.2012 passed by respondent No.1 are confirmed.
2. The petitioner is a CL-9 licencee under the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (‘Act’ for short) and Rules framed thereunder (‘Rules’ for short). The petitioner is running a Bar and Restaurant in the name and style of ‘M/s Karnataka Bar and Restaurant’. The petitioner had submitted an application for renewal of CL-9 licence for the year 2011-12 as provided under the provisions of the Act and Rules. The Inspector of Excise alleging certain complaints from the general public had filed objections against the renewal of the CL-9 licence. After issuing notices to all the parties concerned, an order was passed by respondent No.1 on 17.03.2012 directing the petitioner to shift the business premises to a non-objectionable place. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 and the same came to be dismissed, against which further appeal was preferred before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short). The Tribunal has rejected the appeal. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent – Authorities as well as the Tribunal has failed to apply the provisions of Rule 5[4][a] of the Karnataka Excise Licences [General Conditions] Rules, 1967 in the right perspective. No reasonable opportunity was provided by the respondent No.1 to put-forth the explanation by the petitioner. The order dated 17.03.2012 at Annexure – B is a non- speaking order. No valid reasons are assigned by respondent No.1 in directing the petitioner to shift his CL-9 business to a non-objectionable place. Learned counsel would submit that by virtue of the interim orders passed by the Appellate Authority/Tribunal and this Hon’ble Court, the petitioner is continuing his CL-9 business in the premises in question. The reliance is placed on the Notification dated 19.05.2017 to contend that nothing in sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 shall be applicable to the licenced premises located within a distance of 100 meters from any religious or educational Institution or Hospital or any Office of the State Government or Central Government or Local Authorities, renewed or existed as on 01.07.2016. Moreover, the business premises of the petitioner is not located in any such objectionable place. Merely on some objections raised by the rival businessmen, the authorities have issued the order at Annexure – B.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate supporting the orders impugned would submit that the petitioner was heard in the matter and on the objections raised by the general public, the order impugned at Annexure – B has been passed. Analyzing the material aspects on record, the Appellate Authorities have confirmed the order at Annexure – B and the same requires to be approved by this Court.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is depicted that the Tribunal at the first instance has observed thus:-
“Accordingly the 1st respondent issued notice to the appellant calling upon the appellant to be present on 16.12.2011 for enquiry. On the said date the appellant along with his advocate was present before the 1st respondent. On the said day the appellant had examined several witness and also had cross examined. The matter was adjourned to 17.02.2012 for enquiry. On that day the matter was not called and it was adjourned to 25.02.2012. On the said date the advocate for appellant was present and prayed for time. Thereafter the said matter was adjourned to 06.03.2012. On that date the presiding officer was on leave. Thereafter without informing the advocate for appellant on 09.03.2012 the matter was called and it was adjourned to 17.03.2012 and order was passed on 16.04.2012 directing to shift the premises. In the said order the evidence of the witnesses has not been discussed. Only stating that the appellants advocate has not filed written arguments and the said order is passed. Therefore the said order is not sustainable. The said order was challenged before the 2nd respondent in Appeal No.ECS 04 APP 2012. In the said appeal stay was granted. Thereafter without considering the objections made by the advocate for appellant, the 2nd respondent dismiss the appeal on 15.06.2012. Therefore this appeal is filed alleging that the said orders are not sustainable under law.”
6. The Tribunal having observed as aforesaid has given a finding that the licenced premises is situated in residential area and surrounding the premises there are schools/colleges, temples. Therefore, it is causing disturbance to general public and the respondent has ordered to shift the premises to non- objectionable place. The said finding is vague. As could be seen from the order at Annexure – B, no arguments were addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. None of the Authorities have given a specific finding inasmuch as the licenced premises whether is situated in an objectionable place. If so, which are the schools/colleges/temples situated within the surrounding area. All the orders impugned are vague and do not indicate specifically about the objectionable place. In this regard, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No.1 to re-consider the matter and pass a speaking order assigning the reasons.
7. It is well settled principle that reasons are the link between the application of mind to the controversy and the decision arrived at, by the quasi- judicial authority. The reasons being the heartbeat of a valid order, absence of reasons for arriving at a decision would render the order inappropriate. No valid reasons being assigned by the authorities to arrive at a decision, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No.1 to re-consider the matter.
8. Accordingly, the orders impugned are quashed. The proceedings are restored to the file of respondent No.1 to re-consider the matter in the light of the observations made hereinabove, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to all the objectors. After considering submissions/arguments of the concerned parties, a speaking order shall be passed by the respondent No.1 in accordance with law, in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR