IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.21272 OF 2025 (EXCISE)

BETWEEN:

P.S. SUBBA REDDY

S/O SHVIARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,

R/AT PATHAKOTE,

PATHAPALYA POST, BAGEPALLI TALUK,

CHIKBALLAPURA DISTRICT-561 212. …PETITIONER

(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

SRI B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

CHIKBALLAPURA DISTRICT,

CHIKBALLAPURA-561 212.

Digitally signed by

MAHALAKSHMI B M 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,

Location: HIGH CHIKBALLAPURA DISTRICT,

COURT OF

CHIKBALLAPURA-561 212.

KARNATAKA

3. EXCISE COMMISSIONER

IN KARNATAKA,

2^ND FLOOR, TTMC ‘A’ BLOCK,

BMTC BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR,

BENGALURU-560 027. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI RAJ KUMAR M., AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OR

DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 08/08/2024 PASSED BY THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER IN KARNATAKA (3^RD RESPONDENT) IN APPEAL NO.ECS/63/APP/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The question that falls for consideration before this Court is, whether the petitioner has made out any ground to interfere with the cancellation order dated 03.12.1999 and the order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the Excise Commissioner (respondent No.3) and consequently, whether the petitioner is entitled to seek renewal of the CL-2 licence after a delay of 24 years?

2. Heard Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned senior counsel for Sri B.L. Sanjeev, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Raj Kumar .M, learned AGA for the respondents.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the very foundation of the impugned action dated 03.12.1999, is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the order of cancellation has not been passed by the competent authority contemplated under Section 29 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (‘the Act’ for short). It is contended that the power under Section 29 is vested exclusively with the Deputy Commissioner of the District, whereas the impugned order, as also the earlier suspension order including Annexure-G, were issued and signed by another officer ‘for the Deputy Commissioner of Excise’, who had no authority in law to exercise such powers. Hence, the proceedings questioning the cancellation of the license are a nullity and, once the very order is non-est in law, the question of delay does not arise. It is further contended that the appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without examining the jurisdictional defect. According to the learned senior counsel, even assuming some lapse on the part of the petitioner, the proper course for the authorities was to regulazise the renewal by imposing penalty rather than proceeding to cancel the licence. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned action of cancellation suffers from illegality.

4. Per contra, learned AGA for the respondent would submit that the writ petition is wholly misconceived and liable to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay of more than two decades. It is contended that the order of cancellation dated 03.12.1999 was passed by the competent Deputy Commissioner of District, after issuance of multiple show-cause notices, and after granting sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, who failed to offer any explanation or reply at the relevant point of time. It is admitted that the notice and the order were issued by the Deputy Commissioner of District (Revenue), who is a licensing authority under the Act, and that the petitioner’s attempt to rely upon the signatures appearing ‘for the Deputy Commissioner’ is totally without any basis. It is submitted that the appellate authority has rightly refused to entertain the appeal in the year 2024 after an unexplained dela