BHARATHKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The averments in the memorandum of writ petition are in the direction of establishing that petitioners being rate payers and residents of Vijayanagar, to which the CL-2 licence of the 7th respondent when permitted to be transferred by the order, Annexure-E, was seriously opposed on the premise that both the previous place i.e., Basaveswaranagar and the present Vijayanagar, are residential layouts and the locals of Basaveswaranagar too opposed the grant of CL-2 licence. The written representations annexed to the petitions are not only from the petitioners but also from a member of the legislative assembly and the ward corporator of the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (for short 'BBMP').

(2.) Another fact asserted by the petitioners is that the Deputy Commissioner (Excise) (west)/ 4th respondent on 05.05.2014 received the application filed by the 7th respondent for shifting the location in the CL-2 licence, whence on 07.05.2014 and 8.05.2014 a "spot inspection" was conducted and on 08.05.2014 passed the order, Annexure-E, in great haste. According to the petitioners, their opposition to the renewal of the CL-2 licence on and after 30.06.2015 was also not considered.

(3.) Petition is opposed by filing statement of objections of the 7th respondent licencee, denying the assertions and allegations, while, admitting the fact of permission to shift and the renewal of CL-2 licence by the 4th respondent. It is asserted that the landlord of the premises did not disclose that the premises was a residential building, while the building in the vicinity are put to use for commercial purposes.