IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAK/-\ AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 18*" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINcHIGERI_....__"* WRIT PETITION NO. 22792 OF 2910 (EXCISE) . BETWEEN: SRI BOGGU POOJARY S/O RAMA POO3ARY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS D NO 1040 A, KATTADABUDA KODAVOOR VILLAGE _ UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT . 'T j' PETITIONER (BY SRI S :< ACHARYA & SAN OH'rA.,P" E<AO,R2'A,DV"OCATES) AND: 1. THETAH:;%3VILDARf5»_, . UDUPI TA._Eu:<,'UDUPIH-DISTRICT, ' - 2. SHIVANATHAN - S/O KALIIYAPPAN'' , ._ AGED BOUT 33 YEARS v ._KOPFTA'E;AT_HOTA, KO'DA.VOOR VILLAGE V UDUPI TA'IUI<_' RESPONDENTS
.._(E;V S’RI,%.HVTH-NLEARENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R1,
=SRI>I< SI–:ASHII<ANTH PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
_ THISDMIRIVTD DPETEITION IS FILED UNDER ARTECLES 226 AND 227
..,OF_.TH.E CONSTITDTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
, D'AT'ED".O5.O7.2O'1O PASSED BY THE 1" RESPONDENT, VIDE
'A'NN_EXi;'RE~A..AND ETC.
. _ _ ._,2.’.–TH’ISVVRIT PETITION COMING ON EOR PRLY. HG. IN ‘B’ GROUP
TH’I’S,O_A3/f, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
l\J
QRDER
The petitioner has challenged the Tahsildar’s V.
06.07.2010 (Annexure–A) prohibiting the sake of toddy H
petitioner in the premises in question.
2. Sri S.K.Acharya, the learned,counsevl”‘for petitiorgerl
submits that the reason for Passing tVh’e.:_i’rn.pugVned’g_VV:o’rderf§is that
the petitioner has violated entered into
between the respondent No.2’Aaifl:d_He brings to
my notice that “a:lre’adji:*V.oi:taiined an order of
status quo against VC)’.S.No.10/2009. To
overcome this:Vvorder; filed a false complaint
with the responide-ntoMNo.w.1i.’
3. S.ri.{:I’\VcilaryaVlfurtheréisubmits that the petitioner is not
heard inlthe is not given an opportunity of hearing in
:7V__the that there is total non–app|ication of the
V77lr_ninciV on the Tahsildar. The documents available on
.1therecor~d.._of the Tahsildar was not given any weightage. He
the petitioner has the licence to vend the toddy
‘ -__Vunder”th0e Murthedarara Seva Sahakara Sangha.
IBEEH
4. Sri H.T.Narendra Prasad, the learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1
that the petitioner has no licence whatsoever to .
in the premises in question. Therefore _the__i4mpugried’jorldievr-is.,_
passed as per the provisions containedain1’_Se’ction of.”‘t.rié11.ij
Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.
5. Sri Shashikanth, the learned-‘coup-s’e’l»..for.thle-resvpondent
No.2 submits that the challanst’p«’ro’d’uc,e:’dfbyjtvhfitiypetitioner are in
respect of different that the
petitioner has no inlthe shop belonging
to the respondent if
6. The earlier piartvA..of_llthewimpugned order refers to the
second respo.,nden4’t’s,_:allegati’on«”‘of the sale of the toddy by the
petitio-ner”:a—lunautraorisedly’ “”” and in violation of the tenancy
agreemegjetll.’ discussion, no finding that the petitioner
V7U”‘i~s’vnot ail_i44cence.¥h”o.id;er at all. Only on this short ground, the
-«.l.i.fmp_ug.ned order is liable to be quashed and accordingly it Is
7.?The quashing of the impugned order does not mean that
‘jatDthefpetitioner can continue to vend the todcly in the second
fiBH,
respondent’s shop, if he is not a valid iicence-hoider. __The
respondent No.1 is directed to hoid the enquiry afresh and.vgi:v-ei_ia_V
clear finding as to whether or not the petitioner
licence. If the petitioner fails to produceithe vaiid”ii’ce’nce~~:o’r_ifit ‘*~ 1′
the Tahsidlar is satisfied that he does notviqavaaafivaiid ii¢ence;ne::si’
shall pass the order prohibiting the__ saie-._o.’
petitioner in respect of the second’-..iresupondentifé shop in
question. 1 VA 2 it it
8. Both the p4et–itione,r”‘ No.2 are
directed to appear»hefore’-.’_the.: on 03.12.2010
without waiting__for’~.a:hyi«:.;inotiiseiV’f.riorri_::t’he’:§respondent No.1. The
respondent .tvhe.:_o’ppo”rtunities of hearing to both
the petitioner aindsttie in the matter. Both the
petii;ionerv_..a.énd ‘the No.2 are directed to co~operate
with_theV’TahsiidAai’–.in«the speedy disposai of the matter.
9.’This accordingly disposed of. No order as to
Iud§3