High Court Karnataka High Court

A Manjunath S/O Late Anjanappa vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 12 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court
A Manjunath S/O Late Anjanappa vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 12 February, 2009
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
-- W-'-'"'--"-'-* ' -v- v vv--ru vi Iwnnnninnn ruurn LUUKI U!" KAKNATAKA KIGH COUR1

1 WP1 "£454.08

IN THE HIGI-1 conm or KARNATAKA AT BA§I_G.§.LORE
DATED Tms THE 12??! BAY or-* FEBRU.5.R§fi '12£}o'9_
BEFORE:  " " "   "

'1'!-IE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEmI).V. $H?'§I§?1¥§i§A.l{£IiUI1%.l§ "

Writ Pefition No. 1 "i'4;T§"4 of   '  _ j
sawwmau: " 1 ' " '~ " 

A. MAN.__.?UNATH,
st 1:: LATE &NJANAP?é'»z,

ACQEED may-'r 29 YEARS,

5:1:/2 LECEENSEE,  5 ..
i»;H&'i'A NC}. :27, mopamy. NC),  ;
'~£AL:'%GEPEAHA§_,LI, :~.»1*;s1::-§:§2s':;sm,
QANGALOFEE.    PE'E""YE"'IC3NE;R
    'Mqfigx; Adan]

AND: ' ' I" ' H

1.  THE~;éf:ATE:.oF.;«;p$.grqATAKA,

 Q-53>. .E3"{r?'i"-S_ PRINCE? .1, SECRETARY

' « :'§'O«GCJ'siE mg: Em';'- ». . 4 
E:uFj;PARTMEN'.F Q?"-:HfINANcE AND EXCISE,

_ 1.!if;*HA'NAVs«oU%3}£A',

" LBANGALORE -- 560 001.

 T?~IE~.{j,OMMISSI(3NER C3?' EXCISE
, »_KARNATAKA,

= ._ VuO'%f}{:$L£GARA SANGIJA BUELBENG,
'RANEVGHANNAMMA CIRCLE,
3Ar~;,r3A1,oRE -- 360 001.

'~ 'THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
VBANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
SANGALGRE - 560 061.

{La}

  my: DEPUTY COMMI$SIONER oz»?

EXGESEE ---- H,

BANGALORE URBAN BISTRECT,
POORNIMA COMPLEX.
BANGALORE.

'\ II:-nut:



.....p-. even': '5'! l'\J"'lI\!'f\Il"§I\"\      

4, WP174:"34.08

3. Notice had been issued to the :'esponde11ts_4e3}d while

resporldetlts 1 to 4 -- State and its Officers§_:éi'e:

by Smt. Sarojirili Mutharma, .1ea1~zied ¢=3;.dClitioI1ualL

Government Advocate, fifth fespond'eri£._is _:*ep1:{%sef;1'£,_ed  "

Sri. Anand KR, IeaI31ed'eou;1se'lA.' ~  .

4. I have heard   counsel for
the petitionexf, Smt.  learned Additional
Govennnegitllflldvoeate  respondents 1 to 4

and Sri Counsel appearing for fifth

1’es;_f3011dei1f;;._–V

.3. E’;t;i1}f;1issioI:’.oi” Mohan Bhat, learned eounsel for

petfijionef’ is….that the origiilal authority as well as the

V euthority have not bestowed their atiention to

‘l A reqisfirement of the relevant rules such as rules ii-{1}

and ji:’:{4] of -the Karnataka Excise Licences [Ge11e:’al

. :fC§j_11diti0ns} Rules 1967, for short ‘the rules’; mat before

the premises was shifted from the erstwhile place to the

present place, the Concerned amhorities have gone

through the procedure; that there is 3. report submitted by

‘S/o

— –W -‘- -v—run-v-n – -wt I \.-vun: vr a\Hm\IHEMI\A ITIUH COURT OF KARNATAKA HiGH COURT

9 w?17434.03

pr:::.1oI1g_ing the 81:3}? 01″ the petitioner in the ar€:;2:,_4’?~.It is for

the authorities {‘0 €11S”L11″‘f3 tllai: the orders aifti gi’1{‘r5;*;:’11:’r;’=?£3″g§m’, to

i:nn1ediate1jv if not already g1’V§:;1.a_nd :16 “take; .f1ir’¥;1″1er =-aétigfxg

’11: the nzatiier.

14. Writ petition is dis11″fiss éc.’i._

I llflxni Lr\i|..1It_nLv\uL.pu: .4. ..-.__.._ –