WP No. 41935 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 41935 OF 2019 (EXCISE-) BETWEEN:
THIRANGA FRIENDS SOCIAL RECREATION CLUB NO. 2031, BASAVESHWARA CIRCLE, YADWAD, GOKAK TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591136, REP BY PRESIDENT ANNAPPA T. KALAL.
AND:
(BY SRI J.S.SHETTY, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, FINANCE AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALURU J MAMATHA Digitally signed by J MAMATHA Location: Dharwad Date: 2022.03.31 11:46:32 +0530 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, O/O. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, 2ND FLOOR, TTMC 'A' BLOCK, BMTC COMPLEX, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE.
WP No. 41935 of 2019 3. DY. COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DY. COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI.
4. THE DY. COMMISSIONER EXCISE, OFFICE OF THE DY. COMMISSIONER EXCISE, BELGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR RESP.NOS.1 TO 4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE NO.ECE/22/IML/BELAGAVI/2019 DATED 05.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-A IS ILLEGAL AND UNENFORCEABLE IN LAW AND ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT CL-4 LICENCE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER CLUB IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 26 OF THE KARNATAK EXCISE ACT AND THE RULES FRAMED THEREUNDER.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
WP No. 41935 of 2019 ORDER An application for grant of CL-4 licnece has been refused on the ground that it was situated next to a highway and there was a ban of issuance of licences to premises which were abutting a highway.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the ban of renewal of licenses to places situated abutting a highway was held to be inapplicable for CL-4 licenses since in respect of a CL-4 licenses the sale of liquor was only to the members and a clarification to that effect had infact been issued by the Commissioner himself.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even if a CL-4 license is to be issued afresh, the same analogy would apply in the sense that no member of the public can purchase the liquor from a CL-4 licensee and therefore, the ban which imposed on issuance of licenses to CL-4 would also be incorrect.
4. It is not in dispute that the licenses were refused to be renewed to licenses in respect of the WP No. 41935 of 2019 premises which were abutting to the highway on the ground that it would encourage drunken driving, which in turn was the main cause for number of motor vehicle accidents. However, by the clarification dated 13.04.2017, it was clarified that this ban would not extend to CL-4 licensees since the privilege to sell liquor in case of CL-4 licensees was confined only to the members.
5. Applying the same principle, a fresh CL-4 licensee cannot also sell liquor to the general public and would be obliged to sell liquor only to members and consequently, there would be no drunken driving as in the case of renewal of CL-4 license.
6. I am therefore of the view that the decision of the authorities in refusing to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of a fresh CL-4 license on the ground that it is abutting the Highway cannot be sustained. Annexure-A is therefore quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the application of the WP No. 41935 of 2019 petitioner without reference to the fact that the premises of the petitioner is situated abutting a Highway.
SD JUDGE CKK/Jm/-