Back
2011 Supreme(Kar) 667
High Court of Karnataka
B.S. PATIL
Y.R. Manohar
Versus
The Commissioner Of Police, Bangalore City, Bangalore & Another
Writ petition No. 44096 of 2011 (GM – POLICE)
Decided on : 01-12-2011
For the Petitioner:G.K. Bhat, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R.B. Sathyanarayana Singh, Advocate.
Headnote:KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT, 1966 - Section 20(2) & Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors.,) Rules, 1968, Rule 9: [B.S. Patil, J] Allegation that Police have been interfering with the lawful business of petitioner running in terms of conditions imposed in licence granted in Form, CL-9 - Government Pleader submitted that none of the police officials have interfered with the petitioner in carrying on his lawful business nor do they intend to interfere with the petitioner in such lawful business carried on by the petitioner - Held, In the light of the submission made by the Government Pleader, question of issuing any direction does not arise in this writ petition as the petitioner is entitled to carry on the lawful business in terms of the licence granted.
1. In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a direction against the respondent-Police to allow the petitioner to carry on the business in conformity with the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and the relevant Rules framed there under and in terms of the conditions imposed in the licence granted in Form CL-9. A direction is also sought against the respondents not to interfere with the smooth running of the business of the petitioner.
2. The essential grievance made in the writ petition is that despite the law laid down by this Court in W.P. No. 3743 of 2008 connected with W.P. No. 9345 of 2008 disposed of on 24-9-2008 holding that Rule 9 of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of an Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968 and Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 were unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 and 39 of the Constitution of India and therefore not enforceable, respondent-Police have been interfering with the petitioner from employing women employees in the business run by them.
3. In the light of this grievance made, the learned Government Pleader was directed to secure instructions from the respondent-Police.
4. On instructions, learned Government Pleader submits that none of the police officials have interfered with the petitioner in carrying on his lawful business nor do they intend to interfere with the petitioner in such lawful business carried on by the petitioner.
5. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Administration from the office of the Commissioner, Bangalore City and the Inspector of Police, Ashok Nagar Police Station are present before the Court. On instructions from them, the learned Government Pleader has made the submission as referred to hereinabove.
6. In the light of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader, question of issuing any direction does not arise in this writ petition as the petitioner is entitled to carry on the lawful business in terms of the licence granted.
7. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
