1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Writ Petition No.101180/2021 (GM-EXCISE)

BETWEEN

M/S PALLAVI BAR AND RESTAURANT

CTS No.1262 GOULI GALLI

HUBBALLI REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER

SHRI MANJUNATH S/O PARASHURAM

PAWAR AGED 33 YEARS

OCC: BUSINESS, R/O No.191

ARAVIND NAGAR HUBBALLI

TQ: HUBBALLI DIST: DHARWAD 580 001

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. G.I. GACHICHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)

A N D

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

TO EXCISE DEPARTEMENT

BENGALURU-560 001.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

OF EXCISEDHARWAD DISTRICT

DHARWAD-580 001. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B. RAJENDRA PRASAD HCCP)

2

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

IMPUGNED

ENDORSEMENT

DATED

30.12.2020

BEARING

NO.EXE/IML/CL-9/ES20200624830/20-21/273/2 PRODUCED AS

ANNEXURE-H ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BY ISSUE OF

WRIT OF CERTIORARI OF ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR

ORDER OR DIRECTIONS

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Sri Rajendra Prasad, learned HCGP accepts notice for the

respondents.

2. The petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction under Article

226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the

impugned endorsement dated 30.12.2020 issued by the 2^nd

respondent at Annexure-H, whereby penalty is imposed by

invoking Rule 17-B of the Karnataka Excise License (General

conditions) Rules, 1967 on the ground that the Petitioner has

failed to inform the authorities regarding reconstitution of the

firm.

3

3. The petitioner firm is a registered partnership firm,

running Bar and Restaurant in the name and style of “M/S Pallavi

Bar and Restaurant represented by its Partner Sri Manjunath

after obtaining CL-6A license under Rule 3 of Clause 6-A of

Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules,

1968.

4. The partnership firm is granted with the CL-9 license

as per Rule 3(9) of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and

Foreign Liquors) Rules 1968. The firm of the petitioner came

into existence on 24-12-1996. The license of the petitioner –

firm is renewed from time to time and the last renewal is on

7-7-2020. The firm initially consisted of two partners, one of

the partner having 60% and another 40% share. Thereafter one

Sri. Manjunath Pawar was inducted as new partner to the firm on

1-4-2006 and the partner who was having 60% share parted

with 20% of his share to the new partner which is evident from

Annexure-D.

5. Thereafter one of the partner by name Parashuram

Pawar expired on 23-5-2015 and therefore permission was

4

sought to induct his son as the Legal Heir of the deceased. The

permission under Rule 17-A of the Karnataka Excise License

(General conditions) Rules, 1967 was granted vide Annexure-F

and by virtue of which the partnership firm stood reconstituted

on 1-8-2015 by three partners having 40%, 20% and 40%

share respectively. However the Respondent No.2 issued the

impugned endorsement imposing penalty on the Petitioner by

invoking Rule 17-B of the Karnataka Excise License (General

conditions) Rules, 1967. Hence, this writ petition .

6.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the

induction of new partner cannot be strictly construed as

reconstitution of the firm. He would submit that new partner

was inducted with 20% share and as such neither of the partners

acquired 50% or more share in the firm at the time of induction

of new partner . Hence, Rule 17-B of Karnataka Excise License

(General conditions) Rules, 1967 would not get attracted . In

support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the decision

of a Division Bench Judgment in W.P. No. 30590/20