Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, V.R. Prakash, a CL-9 licensee running a bar and restaurant in Bengaluru, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District (Respondent No.2). The impugned order directed the petitioner to select a non-objectionable place for his conditionally renewed CL-9 licence and make an application for shifting of the liquor vending shop before 15.06.2016, failing which the licence would be liable to be withdrawn under Section 30 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and the premises liable to be closed down. The petitioner contended that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass such an order, relying on a Notification dated 17.04.1998 (Annexure-C). The court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel and the Additional Government Advocate, found that the Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction under the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 to direct the shifting of the licence premises. The court quashed the impugned order and allowed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Excise Law - Jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner - Shifting of Licence Premises - Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, Section 30 - The Deputy Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to direct a CL-9 licensee to shift his liquor vending shop to a non-objectionable place under Section 30 of the Act, as the power to cancel or suspend a licence under Section 30 does not include the power to direct shifting of premises. The impugned order was quashed. (Paras 1-3)
B) Excise Law - Notification dated 17.04.1998 - Scope - Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 - The Notification relied upon by the petitioner does not confer jurisdiction on the Deputy Commissioner to direct shifting of the licence premises. The court held that the Deputy Commissioner acted without jurisdiction. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Deputy Commissioner has jurisdiction under the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 to direct a CL-9 licensee to shift his liquor vending shop to a non-objectionable place, failing which the licence would be withdrawn.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District (Respondent No.2) is quashed.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner under Karnataka Excise Act
- 1965
- Scope of Section 30
- Power to direct shifting of licence premises
- Interpretation of Notification dated 17.04.1998
Case Details
2016 LawText (KAR) (06) 2
Writ Petition No.33226/2016 (Excise)
B.N. Shetty, T.K. Vedamurthy
The Commissioner of Excise, The Deputy Commissioner
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an order of the Deputy Commissioner directing the petitioner to shift his CL-9 liquor vending shop to a non-objectionable place.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the impugned order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner directing him to shift his conditionally renewed CL-9 licence premises, failing which the licence would be withdrawn under Section 30 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.
Issues
Whether the Deputy Commissioner has jurisdiction under the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 to direct a CL-9 licensee to shift his liquor vending shop to a non-objectionable place.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner, relying on Notification Sl.No.58 Annexure-C dated 17.04.1998, submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi
The Deputy Commissioner lacks jurisdiction under the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 to direct a CL-9 licensee to shift his liquor vending shop to a non-objectionable place. The power under Section 30 of the Act does not include such a direction.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the order Annexure-A dated 18.03.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru-Respondent No.2 directing him to select a non-objectionable place for his conditionally renewed CL-9 licence and make an application for shifting of the said liquor vending shop before 15.06.2016, failing which, the licence will liable to be withdrawn under Section 30 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and the licence premises may be liable to be closed down.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Notification Sl.No.58 Annexure-C dated 17.04.1998, which is quoted below, submitted that the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru challenging the order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District. The petition came up for preliminary hearing on 27.06.2016 and was allowed.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Excise Act, 1965: Section 30
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
