High Court of Karnataka Hears Batch of Writ Petitions by Bar/Restaurant Licensees Against Non-Renewal of CL-9 Excise Licenses. Petitions Challenge Communications Issued by Excise Authorities and Seek Directions to Renew Licenses.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Issue of Consideration

KAHC010072452017_1

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (KAR) (08) 20

W.P. Nos.29751/2017 & 31818/2017 C/W W.P.No.27627/2017 and other connected matters

2017-08-22

Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari

Sajan Poovayya, Senior Counsel (for petitioners); A.S. Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General (for State); Prabhuling K. Navadgi, Additional Solicitor General (for Union of India); R.V. Naik (for NHAI); Dr. R. Ramachandran (for BBMP)

M/s. Siddi Enterprises & Others

State of Karnataka & Others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Petitioners, holders of CL-9 excise licenses for bars and restaurants, filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging communications issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise/Commissioner of Excise refusing renewal of their licenses, and seeking directions for renewal.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of communications dated 22-06-2017 and 29-06-2017 made by respondent authorities, and direction to renew CL-9 licenses.

Filing Reason

Non-renewal of CL-9 excise licenses for the year 2017-2018 by the excise authorities.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Hears Batch of Writ Petitions by Bar/Restaurant Licensees Against Non-Renewal of CL-9 Excise Licenses. Petitions Challenge Communications Issued by Excise Authorities and Seek Directions to Renew Licenses.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Against Rejection of Application to Call Witness Under Section 311 Cr.P.C. — Application Filed at Final Arguments Stage After Defence Evidence Closed, Held Not Permissible as It Would Cause Prejudice and Delay.