Sri E Narendra vs The Commissioner Of Excise on 15 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri E Narendra vs The Commissioner Of Excise on 15 September, 2010
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
"I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 15*" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI'~I'.'ij:f  Y.

   

wRIT PETITION Nos.2 21~22 2_1_ E){CI'SEi'_'~.'V"'I: 'I

BETWEEN:

1.

ANDI:_V » "

SRI E NARENDRA
S/O BIMAIAH EDIGA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
PROPRIETOR,

HOTEL BLUE HEAVENS
No.37, 100 FEET ROAD ,   _   
JALAHALLI CROSS, DASA.R.AH~ALL_I  *
BANAGALORE -5 E360.._079' * 

KUM. ARATI - _ A, 1-, ;; -
D/O KAILASH     A j
AGED AB~_Ot}T_ 23_YEARS~  x " 

# 32, 5*" MAIN, GAND'H1'*~A_GAR
BANGALORE": 09%  I - -~  RETITIONERS

 SARI uNISHiT..KLJMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

TH.E'T.COM'fTT1'SSI'i§)'NER OF EXCISE
VAKKALIGARA. BHAVAN

N H K R CIRC4__E,"BANGALORE m 01

A   STATE GOVERNMENT
'REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO

 D'EPAF{TMENT OF HOME
  V' GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
 VIDHANA SOUOHA, BANGALORE

1. ,"~""fi 

" THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE



4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICE
UPPARPET POLICE STATION 
EANGALORE  RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI R DEVDAS, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

THESE wRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER .AR’¥1.CLES4226~ ,

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. P_RAY_ING”TQ» D’IR_E.C’F_ ‘
THE R1 AND 4 NOT TO INTERFERE:VWIT’HIVTHE’ –B__US,INEsV_S*
CARRIED ON BY THE P1 IN HIS BAR AND R.ESTAURAN_T IN».’iTHi’Ei.i
NAME AND STYLE OF “HOTEL BLUE ‘ieiEAvENSff:i3AR ANT)
RESTAURANT SITUATED AT No.317;_S,C.*RoAD, 3i<.E.j'.IC.IR,CLE, v A

BANGALORE 560 009 AND ETC.

THESE WRIT PETITIONSinCONiI’NGi.j’Q;gf-EOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT TMA.DE:_THEiEOLLOWINC3:

Sri R.Devc¥a_s,.. fieayrr1.e:d iti__onfalC’ oyernment Advocate
is directed to;V’taSlte”ntOit§_ce t.h’eflr’espondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. The petityiOn,erS _h4a\:/_e cfizestioned the validity of Section
20_(___2.) of thiégkarnatalka Act, 1965 (‘the said Act’ for short)

and=_Ru:i’e.. Karnataka Excise Licences (General

‘:2L_ConditionS).,’RCUSOSE (‘the said Rules’ for short). Section

of prohibits the employment of women in the

the intoxicants are being sold without the

‘Detmission of the Deputy Commissioner. Rule 9(1) of

Rules contain totai prohibition against the employment

women by the excise licensee.

flgfi.

3

3. Sri Nishit Kumar Shetty, the iearned counsel for the
petitioners submits that this Court, by its order, dated 24.9.2008

passed in W.P.No.3743/G8 connected with W.P.No.9345/08___has

already deciared Section 20(2) as unconstitutional and Ri.ii~e,:’9.’_iteV

be uitra vires and unenforceable. Foiiowing the said ~

Court, by its order, dated 2.7.2010 passed__ in V

249/1o has passed the order restrainingi-:,’thi,-:5″respiondents”iren’i¥f

interfering with the business of thepetitiori-ers

that the petitioner No.1 is not entit!edVV’:to__e-tnpioiy’worneii in his

bar and restaurant.

4. Sri:v’i”R,Vi’ V/iidditionai Government
Advocate appearing’ is in no position to
dispute the passirig’-ofthe’,’-otders’teferred hereinabove.

is’Vh’o””ihVore res integra, these petitions are

disposed’nine..:tevrhtsv”_j.of the W.P.No.37-43/08 connected with

3iw.ip.No.93giS/03.0 5§m’d W.P.No.20246-249/10 directing the

–«.respondents not to interfere with the business of the petitioner

{i’§i,o_«._1. ground of his employing women in his bar and

res–taii ra ii t.

38%

6. These petitions are accorcfingiy ailowed. No order as__to

COSES .

saf§:;

A n

ME)

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *