Loading...

A Vittala Raya Hegde S/O Late … vs Deputy Commissioner Of Excise on 3 April, 2008

Karnataka High Court
A Vittala Raya Hegde S/O Late … vs Deputy Commissioner Of Excise on 3 April, 2008
Author: N.K.Patil
_m_1 mg 3 LGI-I comm' or 1fl1~_rA'rA,154 AI §_A_1~_IgALQfl W.E,1_';Ig. 4131/2008
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3*" DAY OF APRIL. 2008
BEFORE
THE HON'BI..E MR. JUSTICE N.K.PA'I'II.

fl_l§1'l' EETLTION 110.4137 OF R  IECISEI

BETWEEN:
A VITTALA RAYA I-IEGDE

SID LATE LAKSHIVIANA I-1'E"DE
CL-II LICENSEE

LAKSHM! WINES

WARANG VILLAGE, KARKALA
KARKALA{D.K. DIST}

 PETITIONER
(By Sri : NAIK 8: NAIK LAW FIRM )
AND :
1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE

UDLIP! DISTRICT
UDUPI

2 SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
HEBRI CIRCLE, POLICE STATION
KARKALA
UDUPI DISTRICT

 RESPONDENTS

(By SMT :ASHA M KUMBARAGERIMATH. HCGP)

Oil’?

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASI-I THE ENDOREEMENT
DT. 26.2.2008 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEX.C.; FURTHER
DIRECT THE FIRST RESPONDENT, TO EXERCISE THE “POWERS VESTED
IN I-IIIVI UNDER SECTION 45 OF THE KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT AND
CONSIDER THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER AS PER

AI*IN.mEV 3. OT. ‘I9.2.2’J’u’6, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No.4l3’?lf2008

IN THE I-HG COURT OF AT 0 AT BANGALO .P.No. 4 37 008

.9

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’
GRQLJP, THIS DAY; THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

GRBER

..’.io.n.er beino aggrieved by the impugned
endorsement dated ‘:63’ February E68 ‘searing

No.E)(EICRIWDTCR–154I2007–03 issued by first

respondent vide Annexure 0, has presented the instant

powers vested in him under Section 45 of the Karnataka

Excise Act and, consider the application made by

accordance with law.

2. The only grievance of petitioner in the instant

writ petition is tht, petitioner is a holder of CL-ll license,

for saie ‘f ino’i’n rnade foreign iioucr fires”: its ret*ii

outlet under the license issued and the same was

renewed from time to time under the provisions of the

/
f_’:7___.

V

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No.4l37l2008

IN THE fllGH COURT OF KABI_\lATAK.A AT BANGALOEE W.E.No. 4137/200§
1

Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian nd Foreign Liquors),

Rules, 1968. Petitioner is doing its business strictly as

.. J.I__ .I. ____ _._.-I 4..-n–HI};-..-. -1 “gnu.-nun; -nn;h-n.
F Ina IBHHS ant) UDIICIIUUIIS 0| IIUUIIEU 9′ HI”-

‘U!

competent authority. When things stood thus, seine of
the authorized employeeslworkers, manning the licensed
prerniseslshop \.n.r-.re selling ‘loose lio,oo.r’ thus violating
the licensed conditions amounting to an offence under
Section 36 of the Kamataka Excise Act. Therefore, the
jurisdictional Officer of the Krkala Police Station has
registered a case .or commission of the o..ence
punishable under Section 38 (E) of the Karnataka Excise
Act. Be that as it may.

3. Petitioner has filed the application under
g the fi”t
respondent to consider the application submitted by
petitioner dated 19″‘ February 2008 in ccordance with

law. instead of considering the said eoplioetion,

exercising his powers conferred under Section 45 of the

J

/

IN THE men coupe” OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No.4 :37/zoos

IN THE HIGH COURT OF T A B G R PNO. 1 008
4

Karnataka Excise Act, the first respondent has
proceeded to issue the impugned endorsement on the
grsund tht, there its papers or reserve eveiisbie en his
file, pertaining to the request made by petitioner and that,
all the papers appears to have been before the JMFC

court. Being aggrieved by the impugned endorsement

necessitated to present the instant writ petition.

4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for

titiener and learned Ge ernment Pleeder appearing
for respondents.

5. After careful perusal of the impugned
endorsement dated 26″‘ February 2008, issued by first
respcndent, it is seen that, the rssssns assigned b” tirst
respondent for issuing the impugned endorsement
cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set
aside at the threshold itself for the simple reson that,

_lJ ..J.l_ .- L’!

the §Bl authority. Ifi

at
SF
ml

IN ‘THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No.413’7I1008

exercised his power as envisaged under Section 45 of
the Karnateka Excise Act and in accordance with law.

instead of called for records from the concerned

proceeded to issue the impugned endorsement to the

effect that, he does not have the ooncemed case papers
re!e.ing -.e pe.itioreer’s The same is n,t the ground
for not considering the appiiction fiied by petitioner. he
reasons assigned by the competent v’ authority are

contrary to the relevant provisions of the statute.

CD

3′!
T
1

circumstances of the case, the writ petition filed by
petitioner is disposed of with the following directions:
i] The writ petition iiied by petitioner is
allowed in part;

II] The impugned endorsement issued –

IN THE HIGH count 01? KARNATAKA AT BANGJLLORE W.PNo.4l37I2DO8

IN B CO TOF AT AN . .4137/2

bearing No. EXE I CRM I DTCR – 154 I 2007-

08 vide Annexure (2 is her..b-,- se eside;

iii] lvlatter stands remitted back to the
first respondent herein to reconsider the
same afresh and pass appropriate order in
the relevant provisions of the Excise-Act and

Rules, after calling for the entire records from

second respondent end decide the ..eme,

._£I._._

II ‘fiording an opportunity to petitioner, s
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within

a period of two weeks from the date of

* his rder.

I-an Ixl I ‘ll

reeeupt ef e eepy

BMV* 351/”

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No.4l3’7l20D8

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information