High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Shanta W/O Late Ganapathi … vs The Deputy Commissioner on 8 December, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Shanta W/O Late Ganapathi … vs The Deputy Commissioner on 8 December, 2008
Author: N.Kumar
IN THE HIGH GGURT 623°' I<AR1\t§rra._i«m c:Rc§::1%fV:§£*§i%éi+i'

AT BHARWAD
Datsd this the 831 day of E)§:»camhe':1;'    u
Bfiwmfifi é u   4 'N

THE I:~I0kqvfiLE maxi.-q_Us:1?i-.;*:r§ re. KU'iia§3;1§,'  "

Writ Pctiiticm, Na. 3  2053 {{§iXé::is:§i';§

Betwctanz

Smt. Shanta   

W; 0 late Ganaycaathi Bgadiger
Aged 36 yfiaijas.  ' V .  i 
Occ: H0u$Eih:.fi1._df=.v---":-_   ~. 
R I 0 P. H. {1.._(}'i;:§;:fteré§. ' E3a1'i_i«:ap"d:;"
Tq. Shiggsa,dI:._  _   ' ' 
1i)ist.a Havefi   _ _' .  Petitieficr

-  fiaiavi, Ad*s.z0c;.:3.€.e)
&A<;'i,:.% V
   '~!.?}:1t.:. Dep1;t_y"'{§0mmissioner

Havéti District
"»Ij1'::1sIé:3rj_§' 

.'  hVk:4'j_E).é:puty Commissioner of Eilxcifia

..__"[}'i3t3f'ict Administrative Cgmialax
.. Qavagizi
=...'£4Iave1:'i, Dismlct Haveri

V' 3  This Excise Sub--insp<=;ctr:;r

Shiggaon
Taluk Shiggaon
District Have-zri



4 The inspector of Excise
Savanur Range
Savanur
'liq. Savanur
Diistrict Haverri

5 Smt. Sunanda V

E} /' 0 Shankarappa Patfar ._

Age: 38 years  

00:2: Houseizxfid 

R/0 Gold 8113 Stsmgi Roa;i"'

Shiggaon  --_ 3 .V   

{District Havsri      '.,F€esp0nd&ni:s

(By  K. :29?' ':2. 1 to :24?)

This; 1;{1i;:i£=ér Articies 2126 and '22? 0f
the C9113fitutiQ11"1i§_fT. _!1idia.,_ ;J"}:"§_¢.i;;g.5t9 quash the excise iicsnse
N0.E}.f<IE}/ HVi"?;'_.§ML[ Sf3N«{_CL--~2;05/2{)07~{}8 issued by the 21%
respoiascient ciateci in favour 0f the 511111 res;:2omieI11: as
136:3' An'I2¢xa1:e--'H3 "  V'  

_ -- , 'Fhi${'é0ming on for prefinginargz hearing this
d:»:zij,  Court' mails the: following:

ORDER

*..Tj’f1€”‘.:’I3f2tiiiOI1C[‘ has challenged in this writ pc~:ti1:i<:-I1 the

AA €1_§Ci$ét" iicenca granted to the S'-h respendent by the second

_ V i2:s'pcv:1de:1t. V

12. The gmcvancs of ‘thfi petitioner is “?;1€
legafly wedded wifa of one Gan.apathi
the petitioner as the 01113,? kégal h.s:i:;.A’V “Haw{:ver« T. AV
claims to be the W111: e:>f Ganapathb3i”!3§::A§_§§;; er
licence: which’ steed in of. [3iaidgér,’
tzransfenived to her gage. ‘petitioner made
mpzfisentation to the to their notice the
fraud played taken :10 amps.

T1″1€I’€f0I’€,:_. ‘i’::V,gs this writ petitian to
q1ias}j1 . Vfi-zzence gxraiited to flat: 531

respc§fmie’nt ibfv _ i£f}{}’? -08.

3. , “‘?f’_f1€’ (311 recolfi. éiscloscs iihat Ganapathi

V’ . Bé§:fig£.:r.é4i&;d onH{3f£,7;'(31?§.2{}06. The excise licence which stooéi in

‘”Ij3_ii_S’ to an and cm. 31,()6w2{‘}()f5. The impugned

‘};i§§$ii1:::*:_ .is; If:=31″ the §)€1’i0€i f23(}{)7-G8 and ii has expired on

30.06v.’3;§}G8. In the entire ciocumenjt {here is nothfizlg is

A ” A fii’é~icate that this; licence is grarxted by the respondent by way

0f trangfifir. That apart, the present licence is issued for tha

‘ pfiriod firem 01.07.2667 ta 30.06.2008. As is Clear froacn

k/%

Ciaizsa 6 of the c:>n:i.iti:;):1s, it has coma tsam. an

i3().(}€>.i2()O8. ‘The1″ef01″t3 the question 0? q11£;%§:fiir1g.VV:ii’$éé

Iicrence Wh.i<,::h is not ii: f(()I'€?€ '5l'éi)t'&'-' r.:::g;a'{. _ ._fHé:1ce' ~

dismisseci.