The requirement of a Trade Licence for relocating an Excise Licence is not mandatory prior to obtaining permission for the transfer, as per Rule 23 of the relevant rules.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner, who is the proprietor of Eshwari Bar and Restaurant, has approached this Court being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent – City Municipal Council in considering and disposing of his representation dated 22.01.2025 (Annexure-E), wherein he has sought issuance of a Trade Licence in respect of a newly proposed premises. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent Council to expeditiously consider and decide the said representation.

2. This matter has been heard at length on multiple occasions. The core issue that emerges is whether a Trade Licence can be granted by the City Municipal Council in advance for a premises to which the petitioner intends to relocate his existing licensed establishment. There appears to be some uncertainty surrounding the legal necessity or propriety of insisting upon a Trade Licence prior to or contemporaneous with the application for relocation of an Excise Licence.

3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner presently holds a valid Excise Licence in Form CL-9 issued by the Department of Excise, Government of Karnataka, bearing Registration No.150209055. The petitioner contends that, due to practical constraints, operational challenges, and the need to meet evolving market requirements, he is constrained to relocate his establishment to a more suitable and commercially viable location. Consequently, he has sought issuance of a Trade Licence for the proposed new premises, as he apprehends that in the absence of such a licence, his request for renewal and/or relocation of the CL-9 Excise Licence may not be entertained.

4. The apprehension of the petitioner appears to stem from a presumed requirement that a Trade Licence must be furnished at the stage of applying for relocation of an Excise Licence. However, no Rule or Regulation under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 or under the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 has been placed on record by the learned counsel for the respondent - City Municipal Council to substantiate such a requirement.

5. Upon perusal of the relevant legal provisions, this Court finds that the shifting of an establishment holding a CL-9 licence is expressly provided for under Rule 23 of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 1967’). The said Rule enables the licence-holder to apply for transfer of the licence to a newly designated premises. Once such an application is filed, the competent Excise Authority is bound to consider the request in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules, 1967, which lays down the procedural requirements and conditions for grant or renewal of such licences.

6. This Court is of the considered opinion that the requirement of a Trade Licence at the stage of applying for transfer of the Excise Licence under Rule 23 of the Rules, 1967 is not mandatory. The issuance of a Trade Licence is consequential upon the Excise Authority permitting the relocation of the CL-9 licensed premises. In other words, unless and until the competent Excise Authority permits the transfer of the licence to the new premises, the requirement of a Trade Licence in respect of the said premises would not arise.

7. In the present case, since the petitioner has only submitted a representation seeking a Trade Licence and has not yet obtained permission for transfer of the CL-9 licence, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is premature. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to pursue