1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.102376/2022 (EXCISE)
BETWEEN:
RAJU S/O.SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE-46 YEARS, OCC-AGRICULTURE,
R/AT SUDI, GADAG-582211.
MOB-81510-50696.
&..PETITIONER
(BY SRI GOURISHANKAR H. MOT, ADVOCATE)
AND
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
FINANCE AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHAN SOUDH, BANGALURU-500 001.
2.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
OFFICE AT # 104, GADAG DIST-GADAG,
ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, HUBLI ROAD,
GADAG-582 103.
3.
THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
GAJENDRAGAD POLICE STATION,
GADAG-582 114.
4.
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
GADAG-582 101.
5.
THE EXCISE INSPECTOR,
RONA-GADAG DISTRICT-582 209.
2
6.
FRIENDS ASSOCIATION-
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT-
SHRI JAGADISHAPPA S/O.PAKIRAPPA HUGGI,
AT- RON-GAJENDRAGAD ROAD,
SUDI VILLAGE, TQ-RON,
DIST-GADAG-582 211.
&. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VINAYAK KULKARNI, AGA FOR RESPONDENT
NOS.1 TO 5)
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.6 IS NOT ISSUED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE
A
WRIT
OF
MANDAMUS
OR
ANY
OTHER
DIRECTIONS TO RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 5 TO CONSIDER
THE
REPRESENTATION
DATED
26.05.2022
I.E.,
ANNEXURE-E IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING
THIS
DAY,
THE
COURT
PASSED
THE
FOLLOWING:
Petitioner is the co-owner of the property bearing
No.1475 measuring 8714 square feet situated in Saudi
Gram, Gadag. On the said property, 600 square feet is
constructed for commercial purpose and part of the same
property was given on rent to the 6th respondent namely
<Friends Association, Sudi= (for short, 8the Association9) on
lease/rent basis which was executed on 30.06.2017.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
during pendency of the lease agreement, respondent
3
No.6-tenant, who was holder of CL-4 licence was supposed
to use the said premises for the purpose of recreation
activities and serving of liquor in a separate room
exclusively to the members of the Association. But instead
of confining to the regulations and terms and conditions of
the licence issued, the 6th respondent has violated the
same in serving liquor to strangers, who are not the
members of the Association. Despite petitioner informing
this fact to the 6th respondent-tenant, he has not adhered
to follow the Rules and Regulations of licence.
3. It is further contended that he has not paid rent
for more than 03 years. Therefore, respondent No.6 is in
violation of payment of rent and has also violated
conditions of licence issued by the 2nd respondent. Hence,
same is in violation of the Act and the Rules. Due to the
violation of the terms and conditions of the licence issued
by the 2nd respondent, petitioner gave a representation to
respondent Nos.2 to 5 on 26.05.2022 to take action
against the 6th respondent and also sought for relief not to
renew the licence under the Karnataka Excise Act to the
6th respondent.
4
4. In view of representation having not been
considered by respondent Nos.2 to 5, petitioner is before
this Court seeking a writ of mandamus by way of direction
to respondent Nos.2 to 5 to consider the representation
made to them.
5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate representing
respondent Nos.1 to 5 submits that the licence to the 6th
respondent has been issued by prescribing certain terms
and conditions in the said licence and the same will have
adhered to by the 2nd respondent. If there is any violation
and same comes to the knowledge of respondent Nos.1 to
5, they will take action in accordance to law. Learned
Addl. Government Advocate further contends that if the 6th
respondent has violated any of the terms and conditions of
the licence issued under Form CL-4, then the petitioner is
at liberty to approach the respondents for during renewal
of licence and that the present petition filed under Article
226
of
the
Constitution
of
India
would
not
be
maintainable, hence same deserves to be dismissed.
6. On bare perusal of the contents and the
averments
made
in
the
writ
petition,
admittedly
5
respondent No.6 is a tenant under petitioner. Respondent
No.6 is said to have been running a recreation activities in
the form of Association. The rental agreement produced
by the petitioner at Annexure-C does not prescribe any
period of time of tenancy. However, petitioner has
produced the registration certificate of respondent No.6.
7. Grievance of the petitioner as per paragraph No.2
of his petition is apparently clear that he has initiated this
petition for the reasons that respondent No.6 has not paid
the rent and in order to evict on the ground of illegal
activities having been carried out in the premises
belonging to him.
8. In the present case on hand, petitioner has
obtained a licence under CL-4 from the concerned
authorities. Licence is for serving of liquor governed under
the Karnataka Excise Act (Sale of Indian and Foreign
Liquor) Rules, 1968 as per Rule 3 Sub Rule 4- Licence to
Clubs. Same is extracted below :
<3(4) Licence to Clubs.- The Agent,
Secretary or Manager or any other person
entrusted with the management of the business
6
of the club shall apply and obtain licence in Form
CL-4 from the Deputy Commissioner.
Explanation.-For the purpose of this
clause, a club means a body of persons
registered
under
the
Karnataka
So
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.