1 WPIO4-40.07
I' TEE Kiwi 00313.1' 0? KARHATAKA AT
max: 'mm 11-13 2713 our or Juan. _
38%: _ » V A
ma rmlrnm an. wane:
SR1. MK. VENKATASWAM?
S/O KAALEGOWDA, "
AGED ABOU'I'6OYEARS, V .
CL-2 LICENSEE,
BABBUR VILLAGE,~._ ' _
HIR1YUR'rALUx,i_ _ _
cHITRADURA;31mIm':.*__ PE'I'i'I'IONER
-------- _ C, Adv.]
1. THE 'DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
FOR EXCISE. " ; - _
CHITRADURGA VI3Is'§'_RIc':1'.
(;HI'i'RADURCa_5.
.2'; . V V"""1'1~§11'«:E'A":':~:s'iI*1'stC'I'<)r-2 E2'? EXCISE.
' ~ HIREYUR'
__-HI'R1Y mg. RESPONDENTS
_ Asha M. Kuznbargcximath, HCGP]
TIES Em Pmmou IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 225 6; 227
consrmmon OF INDIA PRAYM3 T0 QUASH THE
DE.'-QANB NOTICE D1'. 20.5.2001? ISSUED BY THE INSPECTOR or?-
_ EXCISE-AHIRFYUR RANGE, HIRIYUR VIBE AHNEXURE « E AND E'l'C.,
F THIS PE'I'2'I'ION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY BEARING E'
V" ' "'«.f3}§{§UP, mas BAY, THE comer MADE THE F'OLLOWING:-
2 \VP10-440.0'?
ORDER
This writ petition is by a person who
CL-«Q licence for the periods 1995-96
had paid licence fee on the
shop which was licenced to: sell ti1e”‘£iquo:”v: ~’
withm Babbur Gram Panchayej’; ‘ ‘
2. It is claimed that:_th’e”.elivt;i1orifies from the
earlier Taluk to
during the period
relevant for-. the’ Q0064)? onwards and
thereatte1j.has Iiwnoe fee on the basis of
?.busit1eseiVithih the town municipal area.
fl by the demand notice dated
_ .2’G.o,V6u2()0aJ”-I.’ cot Annexure-E] issued by the Inspector of
Range, apprising the petitioner that the
of the Town Municipal Council, Hiriyur had
4: the excise authorities that re-survey No. 18/ 1 IA
.V.-uwherein the petitioner’s shop is located is within the town
8 WP10440.07
No._18/11A of Madderahalli Village which is undisputedly
within the town municipal area of Hiriyur town.
10. In this confused state of affairs, it is
for this court to examine any merits in
particularly, in the absence of
forthcoming on the part of the .ifespo’::i(ients~ .. 2
11, The respondents, have any’ vvstatfiement of
objections nor have ‘factual position.
Virtually the attitiide only indicates
that ms rsspsfids:ifs”nooc every keen in assisting this
court in “:taerits of the petition. The conduct
V. of the-.:respondents,is__n1ost irresponsible to say the least.
Asha Kumbargerimath, learned
_ Govemmeiit Pleader seeks some more time to get
iiisttfuctions and make submissions, I do not find it is
as this court had put the resmndents on notice
it ” even on 5.7.2007 and it is nearly a year by now.
1{) WP1044().O7
respondents are mulcted with cost of Rs.5,000f§:’e.a.ch
which is to be deposited before this court _
weeks from today. The Registrar Generaigijj ~»
further iI1StI”L1C’tiOI1S, to remit ”
charitable organization.
17. Writ petition is dismissed? –
: :udae
A11/–