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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 7721

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K.S.HEMALEKHA
SRI BASAVAREDDY V LINGADAL – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 100382/2026



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 100382 OF 2026 (EXCISE)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. BASAVAREDDY V. LINGADAL, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED GOVERNMENT SERVANT, R/O: HOUSE NO.42, 1ST CROSS, OPP-BASAVAREDDY ITI COLLEGE, SAMPIGENAGER, DHARWAD.

2. SRI. B.T. REDDY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACTOR, R/O: IIND MAIN, 1ST MAIN, SAMPIGENAGAR, DHARWAD.

3. SRI. MAHALINGESHWAR B. KATODI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O: PLOT NO. 39, 1ST CROSS, MA NJANNA SAMPIGENAGAR, DHARWAD.

E

4. SRI. PRAVEEN ANGADI, Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF OCC: GOVT. SERVANT, KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.21 17:31:47 R/O: K H B COLONY, IIND CROSS, +0530 NEAR CHAITANYA KALYANMANTAPPA, SAMPIGENAGAR, DHARWAD.

5. SRI. MAKANDAR A K, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED EMPLOYEE, R/O: IIND CROSS, K H B COLONY, NEAR CHAITHANYA, KALYANMANTAPPA, SAMPIGENAGAR, DHARWAD.

6. SRI. RAJSHEKARGOUDA RUDRAGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED EMPLOYEE, R/O: PLOT NO. 5, SAROVER NAGAR, K C PARK, KALEGRI, DHARWAD.

7. SRI. BASAYYA C PUJAR, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED EMPLOYEE, R/O: PLOT NO. 15, SAROVER NAGAR, K C PARK, KALAGERI, DHARWAD.

8. SRI. HEMANTH R. TAMADE, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: PLOT NO. 18, SAROVER NAGAR, K C PARK, KALAGERI, DHARWAD.

9. GOMESH H TAMDE, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: PLOT NO 18, SAROVER NAGAR, K C PARK, KALAGERI, DHARWAD.

10. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. KULKARNI AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHANTHINIKETHAN NAGAR, KALAGERI, DHARWAD.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUNIL S.DESAI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU- 560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE BENGALURU-560001.

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE DHARWAD, AT DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE DHARWAD-580001.

5. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, DHARWAD SUB-DIVISION, DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

6. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

7. SRI. BALAKRISHNA S/O. YALLAPPA KALAL AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. DHARWAD, TQ: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

8. THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION, DHARWAD-580001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R6 AND R8;

SRI. SHIVARAJ P.MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR R7)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION, IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ORDER BEARING NO. SC008/2025-2026/00179 DATED 12-01-2026 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-F, AS ILLEGAL, AND ARBITRARY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; AND ETC.

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

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

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners, who claim to be the residents of Sampigenagar and adjoining locality of Dharwad, have filed this writ petition calling in question the order dated 12.01.2026 passed by respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner of Excise, permitting shifting of CL-2 licence of respondent No.7 to Survey No.19B, Basavanal Building, Kelageri Road, Dharwad.

Brief facts.

2. The petitioners submitted representation objecting to the proposed establishment/shifting of liquor shop in the locality. Initially, endorsement was issued stating that no application for shifting had been received. Subsequently, an application for shifting was filed by respondent No.7, petitioners claimed to have filed objections opposing the same. Respondent No.3 passed order dated 12.01.2026 permitting to shift the same.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though objections were filed, no reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded. The impugned order does not clearly reflect application of mind to their objections and the inspection was not conducted in their presence. Rule 5 clause (2-A) of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General C

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