SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 442142

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K S HEMALEKHA
SRI AVINASH C N – Appellant
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE – Respondent
WP 8025/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

WRIT PETITION NO.8025 OF 2025 (EXCISE)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI AVINASH C.N.

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

S/O NAGARAJA C.S.,

AGED R/AT NO.457, CHABBENADU,

MUTHINAKOPPA VILLAGE AND PANCHAYATH,

NARASIMHARAJAPURA TALUK,

CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577134.

2. SRI SUPRATH M.N.

S/O. LATE D.P. NARAYANAGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

RESIDING AT MUTHINAKOPPA VILLAGE

AND PANCHAYATH,

N.R. PURA TALUK,

Digitally signed by CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577134.

MAHALAKSHMI B M

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

(PETITIONER NO.2 IS DELETED

KARNATAKA VIDE ORDER DATED 19.03.2025)

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI VIVEK SUBBAREDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

SRI RAMESH G.P., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,

DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE,

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,

VOKKALIGARA BHAVANA,

HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKMAGALURU-577101.

3. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, N.R. PURA, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577134.

4. M/S. MSIL, CHIKKAMAGALURU, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER-577101.

REPRESENTED BY ITS (A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING)

5. SRI PRADEEP .R S/O RAVI .B AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT DODDINATALE KUSABUR, MUTHINAKOPPA, N.R. PURA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT–577134.

6. SRI YALLESH C/O SHEKHARAPPA BOVI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, JAYANTHI GRAMA, K. KANABUR, MUTHINAKOPPA, N.R. PURA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT–577134.

7. SRI VARGHESE AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, HOSAKOPPA, KUSABUR, MUTHINAKOPPA, N.R. PURA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT–577134.

8. SRI K.K. MATHAYI S/O KURIYAKOSE K.K.

AGED AOBUT 62 YEARS, R/AT YAKKADABAYLU, MADABURU, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK & DISTRICT–577134.

9. SRI HARISH M.V.

S/O VITTALA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT BYRAPURA, MUTHINAKOPPA, N.R. PURA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTIRICT–577134.

10. SRI RAVI S/O LATE BAIRAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT DODDINATALE, KUSBOOR, KUSABUR, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577134.

(AMENDED CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 02.07.2025)

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAJ KUMAR M., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3;

SRI B.S. GAUTHAM, ADVOCATE FOR R-4;

SRI M.C. JAYAKIRTHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-5 TO R-10)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT RELATING TO THE CASE NO.Exe/IML/KoovaCL- 11(c)/96/2024-25; CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT RELATING TO THE CASE NO.Exe/IML/KoovaCL-11(c)/96/2024-25 AND ETC.

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

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

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has questioned the legality of the order dated 13.03.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Chikkamagaluru, permitting the respondent No.4-M/s. MSIL to shift its CL-11-C retail liquor vending licence from its existing premises at Kuvempunagar, Harandur, NR Pura Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District to the premises situated at Sy. No.203/5, Nerale Village, Muttinakoppa Grama Panchayath, NR Pura Taluk.

2. The petitioner, a resident of Muttinakoppa Village, objected to the proposed shifting. The Deputy Commissioner recommended the shifting of the shop. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 61 (2) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (‘Act’ for short) before the Excise Commissioner, seeking an interim stay of the recommendation dated 27.02.2025. The appeal was listed on 12.03.2025 and adjourned to 23.02.2025 after hearing the interim application. However, before any order was pronounced, in the interregnum, the Deputy Commissioner, on 13.03.2025, proceeded to issue the impugned order granting permission for shifting, thereby prompting the petitioner to approach this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Heard Sri Vivek Subbareddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri Raj Kumar .M, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri B.S. Gautham, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Sri M.C. Jayakirthi, learned counsel fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top