CHANDRABANDA HOBLI MURTHEDARARA SEVASAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these batch of writ petitions, the Petitioners being the Societies Registered under the Karnataka Co -operative Societies Act, are questioning the legality and validity of the impugned Notification dated 19.7.2004 bearing No. FD:17:EDC:2004, vide Annexure -A issued by the 1st Respondent. Further, they sought for a direction directing the Respondents to issue licence in their favour for the Excise Year 2004 -05.

(2.) THE grievance of the Petitioners in these writ petitions is that, they are the registered Societies under the Karnataka Co -operative Societies Act. The main object of the Petitioners -societies is to promote the activity of tapping and all the members of the Petitioners -societies are engaged in the family avocation of tapping of Toddy. The members of the Petitioners -societies have no other avocation than tapping of the trees for Toddy. The tapping of the Toddy, its transport and sale are governed under the Karnataka Excise (Tapping of Trees) Rules, 1991. These Petitioners are doing the business in pursuance of the necessary licence granted by the Government as governed under the relevant Rules. The authorities had considered their request and renewed their licences for the relevant Excise years earlier. When they are doing their business for their avocation of livelihood, to shock and surprise of the Petitioner -societies, they came to know about the Government Notification dated 19.7.2004 in No. FD:17:EDC:2004(iii) vide Annexure -A, banning the tapping of trees for Toddy which has been issued unilaterally without any justification. Therefore, the Petitioners -societies are constrained to approach this Court, by way of filing these writ petitions.

(3.) FURTHER , he submitted that when the State permits trade or business in the potable liquor with or without limitation, the citizen has the right to carry on trade or business subject to the limitations, if any, and the State cannot make discrimination between the citizens who are qualified to carry on the trade or business. Further he has placed reliance on the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court at para No. 46 of the above said judgment. Therefore, he submitted that, the impugned Notification issued by the Respondents is highly illegal, unreasonable, besides, capricious, arbitrary and opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and it is liable to be quashed.