Manjunath S Rangadhol vs Deputy Commissioner on 8 July, 2009

-1-

IDATED THIS THE em DAY OF Jlji...-Y;_A4_2f'Q{) 9;:: . _  %  

BEFORE;

THE HONBLE MR.JUs'm:§: RAMJIvI0rLa:v'  A

WRIT PETITION No.190f'§O.A._V"vOFu 2009 

Is/IANJUNATHSRANG~ADH()L.   _ % 
S/0.RRSEETf'«~RA.M:%PPA 2:  
AGE 40 YEARS-._   -  _    A
HIG 17 KALr;AHA«LL1"'---. ,   V'
V}NOBHANAGAR.€;§HIMOGA". ~ _ 
HAWNGVWTHEL SHOP ;;:,e:a--" UMELBEAL"
sH;MoE§3L.iT%'%C<jTry1M1ss1oNER

" ,  SHIM-f}{}A'j;.E5I'SI', SHIMOGA

 _ 2 "'BEPU'.I'Y"€3OMMISSIONER OF EXCISE

SHEMDGA BEST, SHIMGGA.
   RESPGNDENTS

 .;j«17Es3{ 355 R DEVADAS, AGA }

 



 

-2...

THIS PETITION COMING oN1_FoR~R§:L§HsAi%é'iNe;"*1fHis.

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLO_WII§fG:

onng,

On a mere app;%e.1.;ens,io:1'».i.h;autj" -the 2¥1??1V'"zwe§poz1de:1t
is likely to ciose down 'business, duly
ficenced in faV0i§:r:- of   presented this
petition   

 3;   maiideamus directing the
msVpend'ente'~éb-.. petitioner to carry on
the 1) usifiess"of retail liquor shop
at,   maata "Ne".23'..7/09 Umblebaflur village,

  2  terms of Iicense as per
A ;"AN'NvE?XURE'----D.

 '% b).  a writ of prohibition prohibiting the
.V reepeizgients from preventing the business
 'A  of petitiener in the matter ef LEARNEQE}
 eeimsm FOR THE: licensed retail liquor

  V fshep mfless by due proeess of law.



 

...3-

C) Issue any other appropriate writ,   

direction as deemed fit to be gr*ante_(i:"-b_y' 

Hoxfble Court including thev-direction' for   

2. The grievance of  his '' l

learned counsel is that 'v2"'d..,LAres';}ondent orally

instructed the petitiorieiftci 'dtfiyh his business,

Rules. .... _,

 The  petitioner being only a

mere apprehensielx   the absence of allegations of

V xnalafigciese.agai1ist_.Vtt;e"Aofiicer of the State in person and

   the officer as a party respondent in