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

- 3 -

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.

- 4 -

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

- 5 -

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

- 6 -

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 business of Bar and Restaurant by obtaining CL-

9 licence under the Rules, 1968. The petitioner has

submitted an application seeking permission for dance bar

in the licence premises under Clause-4 of the Order of

2005. The licencing