H.R. KOUSALYARAMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has called into question the second respondent's letter, dated 15-6-2006 (Annexure-B), according the prior permission for the transfer of CL-2 licence to the respondent 6. He has also challenged the third respondent's order dated 17-6-2006 (Annexure-C), transferring the CL-2 licence to the respondent 6. He has also sought a direction for the retransfer of CL-2 licence to the petitioner. Sri S.V. Angadi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's signatures were obtained on some papers by way of manipulation. The petitioner never intended to transfer CL-2 licence to the respondent 6. He submits that he had obtained copies of certain documents under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and in that process there is some delay in filing the appeal before the Excise Commissioner. He submits that the order dated 6-1-2011 passed in W.P. No. 14014 of 2010 reserves the liberty to the petitioner to avail of the remedy of filing the appeal before the Excise Commissioner.

(2.) Sri K.A. Ariga, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 submits that there is full compliance with the requirement of Rule 17-B of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 and that therefore the transfer of the CL-2 licence is upheld by the Appellate Authority, namely, the Excise Commissioner. He also takes exception to the conduct of the petitioner in filing one after the other petitions. He submits that this is the third writ petition in the series.

(3.) Sri B.N. Shetty, the learned Counsel for the respondents 6, 7 and 8 submits that earlier the petitioner had filed W.P. No. 21131 of 2009 for challenging the order dated 17-6-2006. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court by its order dated 18-2-2010. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 14014 of 2010 seeking direction to the Deputy Commissioner of Excise to reconsider the order dated 17-6-2006. By its order dated 6-1-2011, this Court dismissed the said writ petition. While dismissing the said petition this Court held that the second petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner has failed to challenge the order dated 18-2-2010 passed in W.P. No. 21131 of 2009 by filing the writ appeal. He submits that all the requirements of law are complied with before effecting the transfer of CL-2 licence.