IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that any administrative action affecting rights must comply with the principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 13.06.2024, passed by respondent No. 1, the Appellate Authority-Commissioner of Excise in the Sate of Karnataka and the consequential order of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise dated 05.07.2024.

2. Heard Sri G.K. Bhat, learned senior counsel along with Smt. Sudha D. learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Radha Ramaswamy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Mohan Bhat, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

The petitioner is said to be the holder of CL-9 license that having been granted in favour of the petitioner long time ago. The story in the petition would commence from an application being made by the petitioner on 19.01.2024, invoking Rule 23 of the Karnataka Excise Licenses (General Conditions) Rules, 1967, for shifting of the bar and restaurant to another place. The application is considered favourably by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise in terms of his order dated 29.01.2024.

4. This is called in question by respondent No. 3 who had sought to file an appeal against the petitioner for shifting of the business from one place to another. The appellate authority-the Commissioner of Excise by an order dated 13.06.2024 allows the appeal in part, and remits the matter back to the hands of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise to afford an opportunity of hearing to the appellant-respondent No. 3 herein. Pursuant to the said order, two events happen as the license was coming to an end at the financial year and the impugned order emerges on 05.07.2024, by which the Deputy Commissioner of Excise implements the order of the appellate authority. The order of the Deputy Commissioner closed the business of the petitioner. It is therefore, the petitioner has now rushed to this Court in the subject petition.

5. Sri G.K. Bhat, learned senior counsel would take this Court through the documents appended to the petition to submit that the petitioner was not heard by the appellate authority and there is no flaw in the order granting to shift the business in favour of the petitioner. He would further contend that the Deputy Commissioner of Excise could not have closed the business of the petitioner when the license that was subsisting, was renewed at his own hands. He would submit that the orders are contrary to law and should be annulled.

6. Sri Mohan Bhat, learned counsel for the caveator - respondent No. 3 would submit that the petitioner was issued a notice by the appellate authority. The notice is appended as Annexure-R1 to the statement of objections. It is his submission that despite of receipt of notice, the petitioner chose not to appear before the appellate authority. Therefore, the appellate authority was right in passing the order impugned in the subject petition. He would further take this Court through a communication of the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner of Excise at the time of renewal of license, which narrates that the appeal, so filed and the appeal being remitted to the hands of the Deputy Commissioner for further consideration. This according to the learned counsel is knowledge enough for it to be in compliance with the principles of natural justice. He would further contend that this Court could not entertain the writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner has alternative statutory efficacy remedy of filing an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would seek to dismiss the petition.

7. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would toe the lines of the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 in defending the order of the Commissioner of Excise that though notice is issued to the petitioner has failed to appear before the Commissioner of Excise for which the Commissioner has passed the order, which according to the learned counsel is assailable.

8. I