The rule of alternative remedy limits the court's writ jurisdiction, which should not be exercised when statutory remedies are available, particularly in administrative licensing matters.

ORAL ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed calling in question the order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Bangalore Urban District (respondent No. 4) whereby approval was accorded for the grant of a Form CL-7 licence in favour of respondent No. 6, M/s Surapana Boarding and Lodging, under the provisions of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (‘Act’ for short) and the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 (‘the Rules, 1967’ for short).

2. The petitioners seek to quash the said order as being contrary to Rule 5 of the Rules, 1967 and in violation of the direction issued by this Court in W.P No. 6336 of 2025 and W.P No. 8978 of 2025. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, the petitioners have filed an application under Order VI Rule XVII of CPC seeking to amend the Writ Petition to additionally challenge the final licence order dated 06.09.2025 which was issued pursuant to the impugned approval.

3. Heard Sri Vivek Subba Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.K. Bhat, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 6 and learned AGA for the State.

Facts in brief:

4. The petitioners are residents of Attibelle, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District. They contend that the approval granted for grant of Form CL7 licence in favour of M/s. Surapana Boarding and Lodging (respondent No. 6) is located within 100 meters of Jayabharathi School and College, the Seri Culture Office, Indira Canteen and the Attibelle bus stand and therefore falls within the “objectionable zone”, prohibited under Rule 5 (1) of the Rules, 1967.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the Deputy Commissioner of Excise has acted in violation of Rule 5 , sub-clause (2) and contrary to the direction of this Court issued in WP No. 6336 of 2025 and WP No. 8978 of 2025, which mandated that the Excise Commissioner alone must verify the distance requirement and accord prior approval before any licence could be granted. It is contended that the authorities earlier issued an endorsement dated 30.07.2024 declaring the site objectionable, but later reversed the same without any change in circumstance. It is contended that respondent No. 6 in collusion with the officials, erected metal barricades and ornamental railings from a private establishment along the roadside to artificially increase the measurable distance from nearby government offices and educational institutions. It is contended that the measurement of distance was taken, “over the divider”, rather than along the ground, contrary to the statutory method and hence the entire process stands vitiated by mala files and manipulation. It is contended that the Deputy Commissioner of Excise acted in violation of the directions of this Court in the earlier proceedings. As those orders required the competent authority to act in accordance with Rule 5 sub-clause (2) and after considering the petitioners objections, the impugned order dated 18.08.2025 was passed mechanically without examining their detailed objections dated 07.05.2025 and 14.05.2025. It is submitted that a final licence order dated 06.09.2025 has been issued, and the petitioners have filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to include a challenge to that order also, contending that the same is without jurisdiction and contrary to Rule 5 and the earlier judicial direction.

6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 contends that the impu