IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 30"' DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 Q BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE EN..NAA.G4AM.OE};~;NT1VO;$;S.'f_;_ WRIT PETITION No. 3121212009 8;-31Eé?7E0/;g069 BETWEEN : 1. Sn. SKANTHARAEU S/0. SRINIVASAN 'O AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS'. MANAO1Nce_EART:§ER MEHENDE Es;~;T< & .R'ESTAUR.AN1* ' NO- 4.4/4; T) E_NcY:C R'O.SOs,VR.7OAO BANGALORE;2S_%E 2. Kum,SONY A(3ARWA3.;. D/O. NA\7J.OT AG.ARw.'AL AGED AB-OUT?2: YEARS 1.42, 3'??? QROSS O " 2NDT'£&4A'IN, R.T. NAGAR " ~ _ BANGALORE. . . . PETITIONERS (.B'*rT«.S'ri.'. S'; V91S3HfSVAT1TH SHETTY, ADV.) 'AND f .. C C 4 ..TEE COMMISSIONER FOR EXUSE, VAKK.AL,1GARA BHAVAN KR. CIRCLE, BANGALORE -- I. §'\\_;~\,.. IN) THE STATE GOVERNMENT REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAK/«\ VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE -- 1 THE COMMTSSIONER OF VPOL](a§E_' INFANTRY ROAD I - '- BANGALORE. THE STATE GOVERNMENT" -- _ REP. BY ITS SECRE--T}F;RY'._TQ_»V ~ _ THE DEPT. OF HOME ' I ' ' VIDHANASOUDHA-'~ . ' BANGALORE ;_:--.L RESPONDENTS (BY Sfi. ZVRHDE'vAVDASf'§,AO:'A_;j' é TH»--.E'i=SE'" WRIT """ "RET1TION'S ARE FiLED UNDER AR*T--1cLES~.2:z5fA.ND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 'WITH *AIj"»_RRIAy_1ER TO DIRECT R~l AND R~3 NOT TO V INTE'R;FERR'E--.W1TH THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ' * FIRST RETTTIONER 1N HIS EAR AND ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON t..jERREI;;I_NnNARY HEARING THIS DAY. THE. COURT PASSED _ '§TH'E.i?()1_i,O\?\/INC}; (;4\s\,T ORDER
Sri. Devadas, teamed Additional Government _t'{dvoc:i_it<::
directed to take notice for respondents.
2. It is not in dispute that this co;;i’i-‘i”‘iii-«\m; Nels-7.43/zees
vide order dated 24.09.2008 held that Subser;tiion0.(2) ii
the Excise Act and Rule 9 of the”-«Cieneratl C-:)ndi.tsio.nsi”1Riiles as
vioiative of Articies 14, 15;’ ~.t_6, 2.:”‘iimii.[‘,39V””oif§ the Ciimimnon of
India and therei’ore the some is not Cit.vil(3Vi'(30C£1l3il_L’si’ .T;hVis’_ordei’ oi’ iearned
Single the judgment referred to
above, the’«respondentsi:.i:Vat’e”–~i..nterfei’ing with the business of first
pCElEl(){i,*3!T. and e”au_si11gTobsirucftion. If that is so, petitioners are at
.”iihert’y. to3..j¢oin’p.ia1in toliheljurisdietional police making allegations
iiztgaiinstiithe”–«.coniC’e.ifned persons who caused obstructions to their
biisiness. In that event the concerned poiice have to take appropriate
iietion in £if;.C(}rLi£tnC€ with law.
524%
3. With the above obscrvaiion. the wrii petitions; am:_hc_réby
disposed off.
4. Sri. Devdas, learned Additionai GcwernmenilAdvQc;i{t: 1s _f
pcarmiucd to fiie his memo of appearancé’AW§tI:i11 three Wééi<%V fr0 'm
today.
LRS/30102009