Pending criminal cases do not inherently disqualify a petitioner from obtaining a license, as established by the court's reliance on precedent.

ORDER

The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 22.04.2016, passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-G, filed this writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:

The petitioner was carrying on a business of Bar and Restaurants and was issued with CL-9 licence under the provisions of Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1968 (for short ‘the Rules, 1968’). The petitioner obtained a trade licence and all other necessary licenses from the concerned authorities to run the Bar and Restaurant. The petitioner filed an application on 22.08.2013 seeking permission under Rule 11(1) of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 to run Dance Bar in the premises. The said application came to be rejected vide order dated 02.12.2014. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 02.12.2014, filed a writ petition in W.P.No.6185/2015. This Court disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 11.03.2016 and set aside the order dated 02.12.2014 and directed respondent No.2 to reconsider the representation of the petitioner and pass the orders as expeditious as possible. After remand, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order rejecting the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the criminal cases are pending against the petitioner. Hence, on the said ground, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order, has filed this writ petition.

3. Learned Additional Government Advocate has filed the statement of objections contending that CL-9 licence was granted in favour of the petitioner and further, the petitioner was running a Bar and Restaurant. It is admitted that the petitioner filed an application seeking for grant of permission to run dance bar. It is contended that the said application came to be dismissed on the ground that the criminal cases are registered against the petitioner. Hence, on the said ground, the application was rejected and prays to dismissed the writ petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted an application as per Clause- 4 of the Licensing and Controlling of Place of Public Entertainment (Bangalore City) Order, 2005 (for short, ‘Order, 2005’). He submits that respondent No.2 has rejected the said application only on the ground that the criminal cases are registered against the petitioner. He submits that mere registration of criminal cases against the petitioner, is not a ground to reject the said application.

In order to buttress his arguments, he has placed a reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MANOJ NARULA VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in 2014 AIR SCW 5287. Hence, on these grounds, he submits that respondent No.2 has committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the criminal cases are registered against the petitioner. He further submits that the licencing authority can refuse to grant a licence on considering the status and antecedents of the applicant. He further submits that several cases have been registered against the petitioner. Considering the antecedents of the petitioner, the licencing authority - respondent No.2 was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

7. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was carrying a b