NAGARAJ Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Captioned writ petition is filed by CL-9 licence holder assailing the impugned endorsement dtd. 4/1/2012 issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-F declining to refund the profit margin, which was illegally deducted by the authorities based on notification dtd. 28/2/2009.

(2.) The petitioner is holder of CL-9 licence, who is running a bar and restaurant. The respondent-authorities based on notification dtd. 28/2/2009, have reduced the profit margin of the petitioner from 20% to 10%, which compelled the petitioner to knock the doors of the Writ Court in W.P.No.6624/2009. In the said petition, the learned Advocate General fairly admitted that notification dtd. 28/2/2009 is applicable only in respect of CL-2 licence holders and the said notification is not applicable to CL-9 licence holders. In the light of the statement made by the learned Advocate General, the said writ petition was allowed reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority basing his claim.

(3.) In the light of the observations made by this Court in the said writ petition, a representation vide Annexure-E was given to respondent No.2. However, respondent No.2 has again declined to consider the representation given by the petitioner and rejected the claim of the petitioner by issuing an endorsement vide Annexure-F dtd. 4/1/2012 on the ground that there is no provision to refund. The said order is under challenge.