SARITHA S. HEGDE Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners when issued with CL-2 licence after due enquiry and following Rule 5 of the Karnataka Excise (sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1968, for short 'Rules', filed an application for transfer of licence from Kundapur to Udupi in the year 2009, whence Deputy Commissioner having regard to Rule 23 of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 and Rule 5 over restriction of location of the shop permitted the shifting to Udupi. Thereafterwards, on an application under Rule 5-A of the Rules, licence was renewed for the years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. Petitioners application for renewal under Rule 5-A for the year 2014-15 filed well within time on payment of prescribed fee was not considered, but the Deputy Commissioner issued notice dated 30.6.2014 Annexure-J calling upon the petitioners to furnish copies of records of the building as well as the conversion order for diversion of the land over which the shop premises was constructed. Hence these petitions to quash the notice Annexure-J and for a mandamus to direct respondents to renew CL-2 licence for the current year 2014-15.

(2.) Sri. D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that regard being had to Rule 5-A of the Rules, there can be no refusal to renewal since petitioner filed the application within time and made payment of the prescribed fee in compliance with Rule 5-A. Learned Sr. counsel further submits that allegations over construction of the shop premises on agricultural land since not converted and that the building sanction plan issued by the panchayat was withdrawn are matters pending in an appeal proceeding before the appropriate authorities where in an interim order of stay is operating. Even otherwise, learned Senior counsel submits that the consideration necessary for renewal of licence under Rule 5-A not being an enquiry into the validity or legality of the shop premises constructed on the land in question, since such an enquiry, if any, if permissible, perhaps could be under Rule 5 of the Rules when licence is issued for the first time and in any event not at the stage of renewal of the licence.

(3.) Per contra, learned HCGP submits that petitioners have committed a fraud in not disclosing the true identity of the property where the shop is constructed. In other words, there is material to substantiate the fact that the authorities of the Taluka Panchayat have initiated proceedings against the owner of the premises for not furnishing the correct information over conversion of the land for use from agriculture to non-agricultural purposes and the construction of the building on such land. According to the learned counsel, the owner of the shop is said to have obtained an order of conversion of some land other than the land on which the shop premises is constructed and therefore, the shop premises in which the petitioners carry on business with CL-2 licence is illegal hence disentitled to the benefit of a renewal. Learned HCGP hastens to add that if the petitioners were to make available records called for in the notice Annexure-J, then the petitioners' application for renewal will be considered.