Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, S. Gopal, a CL-9 licensee for vending liquor, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka. He was aggrieved by an order dated 06.06.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Bangalore Urban District (South), directing him to shift his liquor shop from its location at Shop No.10 (old No.19), Mavalli Tank Bund Road, Kalasipalya, Bangalore, to another place not objectionable under the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967. The order was based on Rule 5(1) of the said Rules, which prohibits the existence of a liquor shop within 100 meters of any religious or educational institution, hospital, office of the State or Central Government, local authorities, or in a residential locality. The petitioner contended that the shop had been running for a long time and that the order was illegal. The court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel, Sri B.N. Shetty, and the learned AGA, Sri T.K. Vedamurthy, found that the shop was admittedly within 100 meters of a religious institution. The court held that the petitioner had no vested right to continue the business in violation of the statutory rules and that the impugned order was valid. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Excise Law - Liquor Licence - Proximity to Religious Institution - Rule 5(1) of Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 - The petitioner, a CL-9 licensee, challenged an order directing him to shift his liquor shop as it was within 100 meters of a religious institution. The court held that the order was valid and the petitioner had no vested right to continue business in violation of statutory rules. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order directing the petitioner to shift his liquor shop from its current location due to its proximity to a religious institution is valid under Rule 5(1) of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The impugned order dated 06.06.2016 was upheld.
Law Points
- Rule 5(1) of Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules
- 1967
- Prohibition of liquor shop within 100 meters of religious institution
- No vested right to continue business in violation of statutory rules
- Writ petition dismissed
Case Details
2016 LawText (KAR) (06) 25
Writ Petition No.21267/2016 (Excise)
Sri B.N. Shetty (for petitioner), Sri T.K. Vedamurthy (AGA for respondents)
The Commissioner of Excise in Karnataka, The Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Bangalore Urban District (South)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order directing the petitioner to shift his liquor shop.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the impugned order dated 06.06.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the order directing him to shift his liquor shop from its current location due to its proximity to a religious institution.
Issues
Whether the order directing the petitioner to shift his liquor shop is valid under Rule 5(1) of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner contended that the shop had been running for a long time and the order was illegal.
The respondents argued that the shop was within 100 meters of a religious institution, violating Rule 5(1).
Ratio Decidendi
A licensee has no vested right to continue business in violation of statutory rules. The prohibition under Rule 5(1) of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 is absolute and the authorities are justified in directing the shifting of a liquor shop located within 100 meters of a religious institution.
Judgment Excerpts
The present writ petition has been filed by Mr.S.Gopal, holding CL-9 licence to vend liquor... aggrieved by the order Annexure-A dated 06.06.2016, asking him to shift the said liquor vending shop from the said location to another place which is not objectionable as per the provisions of Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967.
The petitioner has no vested right to continue the business in violation of the statutory rules.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka challenging the order dated 06.06.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise. The court heard the matter and dismissed the petition on 08.06.2016.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967: Rule 5(1)
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
