R PALAKSHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the journalist. He claims to be the editor of 'Excise Voice'. He is a resident of this city. In this petition, which is stated to be public interest litigation, he has prayed for the following relief : (a) for issue of a writ order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus, prohibition or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent No. 1 not torelease the marginal money or any further amount to the second respondent with an object to provide the neces sary infrastructure for taking over the sole distribution of liquor. He has asked for consequential costs if the first prayer is granted at prayer (b).

(2.) The grant of the sole distributorshipto Mysore Sales inter-National Limited was the subject-matter of the decision of this Court in M/S, Jagadale & Sons v State of Karnataka (see I.L.R 1989 Karnataka 101). The Division Bench has, after exhaustively dis cussing all aspects of the matter, up held the validity of the rulssquestroned in the said decision conferring sole distributorship on Mysore Sales Inter national Ltd. which is a wholly "owned Government Company of the Government of Karnataka.

(3.) Any distributorship agencycreated between State Government and its own company solely owned by it, is a matter that cannot be subjected to jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. After all, the second respondent is only the extended limb of the Mate of Karnataka, In what manner the State finances its own Company is no concern of this Court and muchlcss that of the petitioner. For the above reasons, Petition is misconceived and it is rejected. Writ petition rejected.