THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.58096 – 58097/2018 (EXCISE) BETWEEN:
SRI N.VINAY S/O G.H.NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, THE CL-2 LICENSEE R/AT NO.51, MATHRU MANDIRA PRASHANTHNAGARA CHICKBALLAPURA-562 101 ... PETITIONER [BY SRI M.VEERABHADRAIAH, ADV.] AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (EXCISE) VIDHANA SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE GOVT. OF KARNATAKA SHANTINAGAR BMTC BUS STAND COMPLEX, SHANTINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN-561201.
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN-562 101 5. THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE GOWRIBIDANUR RANGE GOWRIBIDANUR, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561 208 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI M.MUNIGANGAPPA, HCGP.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN RELATED TO IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 11.12.2018 AT ANEX-R ISSUED BY R-3 FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE INVOLVED.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has called in question the legality and correctness of the endorsement dated 11.12.2018 issued by the respondent No.3 – Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Chikkaballapura District, inter alia, seeking for a direction to the respondent No.3 to renew the CL-2 licence for the year 2017-18 and 2018-19 as per the direction of the respondent No.1 dated 31.08.2018.
2. The petitioner is claiming to be carrying on the business with CL-2 licence issued under Section 26 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 read with Rule 3(2) of Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1968 since 2010 at Sy.No.160/3, Namagondlu village, Namagondlu Grama Panchayath, Gowribidnur Taluk, Chikkaballapura District. It is contended that the licence has been renewed after collecting the required licence fee for the year 2017-18. It is the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.3 rejected the request of the petitioner to renew the licence for the excise year 2018-19 which is contrary to the Government Order dated 31.08.2018 issued pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Secretary Home, Prohibition & Excise Dept. and others vs. K. Balu and another in Civil Appeal Nos.12164-12166 of 2016.
3. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that respondent No.3 being the president of District Road Safety Committee is obligated to take safety measures to prevent the accidents in the National Highways owing to the consumption of liquor and in that direction, a decision has been taken to reject the request of the petitioner for renewing of licence as sought for. It was further argued that Namagondlu village does not come within the sufficiently developed area as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment referred to above.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
5. The material placed on record by the petitioner prima facie depicts that the population of Namagondlu Grama Panchayath consists of 8379 and it is also observed in the endorsement issued by the respondent No.3 that the population of the said village consists of 6835. “Municipal Agglomeration” or “Sufficiently Developed Area” has been defined by the Government of Karnataka in terms of the Government Clarification dated 18.06.2018 and 31.08.2018, wherein it is held that the population of more than 5000 in any village panchayath relating to 2011 census shall be considered as “Sufficiently Developed Area”. The same has been considered by the Commissioner of Excise - respondent No.2 and general instructions have been issued to all the Deputy Commissioners of the State vide letter/instructions dated 01.09.2018.
6. In such circumstances, respondent No.3 rejecting the request or application of the petitioner for renewal of licence relating to the excise year 2018-19 on frivolous grounds cannot be countenanced. On the other hand, the said reasons assigned by the respondent No.3 are not in conformity with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment referred to above. Hence, the endorsement impugned at Annexure-R cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, writ petitions are allowed. The endorsement impugned at Annexure-R dated 11.12.2018 is set aside.
Respondent No.3 shall reconsider the request or application of the petitioner for renewal of the licence relating to the excise year 2018-19 in accordance with law and shall take a decision in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR