IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.6120 OF 2026 (EXCISE)

BETWEEN:

SRI SANJAY ASRANI S/O RAGHULAL ASRANI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.2, AUM VILLA APARTMENTS, 41 BENSON, B CROSS ROAD, BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU–560 046.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI MANIKANTA H.B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-1 (BUD-1), NO.02, 3^RD FLOOR, 3^RD CROSS, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, YESHWANTHAPURA INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, Digitally signed by BENGALURU–560 022.

MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COURT OF BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KARNATAKA K.G. ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU–560 009.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANJUNATH B., AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT / RESPONDENTS IN PROCEEDINGS NOTICE BEARING NO.EXE/BUD- 1/VA.NO.1/BATHAMA/DOORU/04/2023-24 DATED 19.01.2026 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’

GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has called in question the notice dated

19.01.2026 issued by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Bengaluru Urban District-1 proceedings bearing No.EXE/BUD-1/V-1/CL- 9/Bhatam/Dooru/04/2023-24 (Annexure-E), whereby the petitioner has been directed to appear before the authority in connection with certain proceedings initiated against the CL-9 licence held by the petitioner.

Brief facts:

2. The petitioner claims to be the holder of CL-9 licence in respect of a liquor shop situated at No.2052/B, 3^rd stage Yelahanka, Bengaluru. It is stated that one Appaji G. had earlier submitted an objection dated 09.10.2023 opposing the shifting of petitioner's CL-9 shop. Subsequently, the said objector is stated to have withdrawn the objection by a written communication dated 05.12.2023. Despite the withdrawal of the objection, respondent No.1 issued the impugned notice dated 19.01.2026 calling upon the petitioner to appear before the authority on 09.02.2026. Aggrieved by the issuance of the said notice, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the impugned notice is only unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the very complaint on the basis of which the proceedings have been initiated had already been withdrawn by the complainant, and therefore the respondent could not have proceeded further in the matter. It is further submitted that the impugned notice does not disclose the nature of proceedings and initiation of such proceedings is arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Hence prays that the impugned notice and the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the impugned notice is only a notice, calling upon the petitioner to appear before the competent authority and no final order adverse to the petitioner has been passed. It is submitted that the petitioner had an opportunity to place all his objection and explanation before the authority and that the writ petition is premature and the petitioner may be relegated to participate in the proceedings before the competent authority.

5. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

6. It is evident that the impugned communication is only a notice issued by the competent authority calling upon the petitioner to appear before it in connection with the proceedings initiated under relevant provisions governing the CL-9 licence. That said notice by itself does not determine any rights of the petitioner. It is open for the petitioner to place all his objections, including the contention that the complainant had already withdrawn the objections, before the competent authority.

7. In the circumstances, this Cour