1. In this writ petition, petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.02.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore, ordering that permission granted to him on 5.5.2011 to shift CL-9 license to vend liquor from the premises bearing Khatha No.102, Assessment No.14 & 10/2, property No.221, Prasanna Layout, Mahadeshwaranagar, Bangalore, as has been cancelled on account of violation of Rules 3(9)(a) & 3(9)(b) of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968 (for short, 'the Rules').

2. The order dated 14.02.2012 was challenged by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Excise, by filing an appeal under Section 61(2) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act'). The Appellate Authority dismissed the WP 15258/2012 appeal vide order dated 23.02.2012. The second appeal presented before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal under Section 61(3) of the Act, is also dismissed by the Tribunal. Hence, aggrieved by the orders passed by the original as well as the appellate authorities, the present writ petition is filed.

3. Facts in brief necessary for the disposal of this writ petition, are that the petitioner is having a license given in Form - CL-9 to vend liquor. Earlier, he was running the business in the premises bearing No.16, 100 feet Ring Road, 3rd Main Road, Muneshwara Farm, Pantharapalya, Bangalore. The said premises, it is urged, was demolished for widening the road. Hence, an application was made by the petitioner seeking permission to shift his business to the present place at No.102, Assessment No.14 & 10/2, Property No.221, Prasanna Layout, Mahadeshwara Nagara, Bangalore.

4. The Deputy Commissioner of Excise, had passed an order permitting the petitioner to shift to the present place imposing a condition that in case any objections were to be raised, the order permitting shifting was liable to be recalled. Accordingly, petitioner moved to the present premises. Respondent No.3 herein who is a local Corporator insisted that the petitioner WP 15258/2012 should occupy some other premises. Objections were also raised by the members of the public. A report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police was obtained. Based on the same, Annexure-J order came to be passed holding that the petitioner has to shift the shop to another suitable building, in view of the public nuisance likely to be caused and in the interest of public peace.

5. Alleging various grounds, petitioner preferred an appeal against this order before the Commissioner of Excise. The Commissioner of Excise passed the impugned order at Annexure-K.

6. On perusal of the order, it is clear that the contentions urged by the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties have been referred, but when it came to consideration of the contentions, the Commissioner has totally ignored the basic requirement of passing a reasoned order and has proceeded to dismiss the appeal by observing that he did not find any technical or procedural lacuna in the order passed by the original authority. Reference is made by the Commissioner to the earlier order of remand passed by him and the fact that after remand, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise had issued WP 15258/2012 notice to all the persons, visited the spot and thereafter recorded his findings. Except stating this, nothing is said regarding the contentions urged by the petitioner. It is relevant to notice here that the petitioner has taken up several legal contentions including the contention that the authorities below have acted at the instance of respondent No.3 who had an axe to grind against the petitioner.

7. It was incumbent upon the Commissioner to examine the contentions in the light of the records available and record his findings. Being the First Appellate Authority, the Commissioner ought to have discharged his duties of passing a speaking order re-appreciating the materials on record. When this order of the appellate authority was challenge