The central legal point established in the judgment is that subsequent orders passed during the pendency of the application filed in the prescribed form by the petitioner justified the grant of the licence, despite the initial lack of efficacy of the prior sanction granted by the State Government.

( 1 ) AT the stage of preliminary hearing Sri t. R. Subbanna, learned Government advocate, vvas directed to take notice for the respondents. Accordingly, he took notice. He has also secured the records. As the petition can be decided on the basis of the records produced by the learned government Advocate and also the records produced by the petitioner along with the writ Petition and the additional statement of facts, Rule is issued and the petition is heard for final disposal.

( 2 ) IN this petition under Article 226 of the constitution, the petitioner has sought for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus (1) directing the Excise Commissioner- respondent-1 to issue licence for the manufacture of Indian made liquors out of rectified spirit as sought for by the petitioner and approved by Government, under the provisions of Karnataka Excise (Distillery and Warehouse) Rules, 1967, and also to issue the bottling licence under the provisions of Karnataka Excise (Bottling of liquor) Rules, 1967 for enabling the bottling of, such liquor manufactured by the petitioner; (2) directing respondent-2 State government to see to the issue of such licences forthwith by the Excise commissioner, and (3) directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner for the loss of income suffered by the petitioner by reason of the failure to issue the licence for the period 9-1-1988 till date and for such further period as may be taken for issue of such licences.

( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner is that the state Government before the imposition of the President's Rule accorded prior sanction for grant of licence to the petitioner to manufacture I. M. L. out of rectified spirit and also ordered for allotment of 25,000 litres of rectified spirit per month by its order dated 6-1-1988 bearing No. HD 51 EFL 84, addressed to the Excise Commissioner, annexure- C; that in spite of the prior sanction granted by the State Government as per Annexure-C, the licence to manufacture i. M. L. out of rectified spirit has not been granted and allotment of quota of 25,000 litres of rectified spirit per month has not been made; that even after the imposition of the President's Rule, the State Government, on the report made by the committee appointed to go into all the applications and suggest the norms, issued a General Order no. HD 78 EFL 88 dated 7-6-1989. Annexure-O; that in accordance with the aforesaid general order Annexure-O the case of the petitioner fell within sub-clause (ii) of the Government Order, Annexure-O. Therefore the State Government issued another order dated 2-8-1989 bearing No. HD 160 EFL. 88 directing the Excise commissioner to grant the request of the petitioner [or issue of a licence as previously instructed on 4-7-1989.

( 4 ) HOWEVER, it is contended by Shri subbanna, learned Government Advocate, that the Government Order dated 6-1-1988 has no efficacy in law, because on the date that order was passed there was no application filed in the prescribed form before the prescribed authority for grant of licence as required by the Karnataka Excise (Distillery and Warehouse) Ruies, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'); that as per Rule 4 of the Rules, the power to grant is vested in the Commissioner and in exercise of that power if the Commissioner decides to grant the licence he has to grant the licence with the previous sanction of the state Government and in the facts and circumstances of the case if he decides to rejeet the application, the question of obtaining prior sanction from the State government does not arise. Therefore it is submitted that as there was no application filed prior to 6-1-1988 before the commissioner for grant of licence as per the rules and there was no decision taken by the commissioner to grant it, the approval granted by the State Government on the petition filed before the Chief Minister has had no efficacy in the eye of law.

( 5 ) IF only the matter stood at that probably the submission ma