ANAND WINES Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are preferred challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge who after quashing the order dated 08.05.2014 - Annexure E, permitting the shifting of the location under CL-2 license, by reserving liberty to the appellant to seek shifting of CL-2 license to another premises built for commercial use elsewhere after obtaining orders of the Deputy Commissioner (Excise).

(2.) For the purpose of convenience, parties are referred to as they are referred in the writ petition.

(3.) Petitioners are the residents of B.Krishnappa Layout, Vijayanagar, Bangalore 560 040. Their case is, the said residential area in which they are living is surrounded by Schools, Colleges, Central Government Office, a Co-operative Bank and some of the departmental stores. When they came to know about a likelihood of opening of a liquor shop adjacent to their house, they filed objections before the respondent Nos.4 and 5 on 07.05.2014, not to grant any such license. They also came to know that a spot inspection was made by respondent Nos.4 and 5 on 07.05.2014. However, the petitioners were not notified of such spot inspection. Their grievance is that, without considering their objections, Annexure E - permission was granted to the respondent No.7 to shift his CL-2 shop from Basaveshwarnagar to Vijayanagar. Therefore, they preferred writ petitions before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the representations given by them and to hold an enquiry before granting the renewal of the license to respondent No.7. They also sought a mandamus to respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to renew the license and they sought for interim order to that effect. After service of notice, the respondents entered appearance, respondent No.7 contested the matter and after hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge after taking note of the statutory provisions in particular Rule 5(4)(a) of the Karnataka Excise Licenses (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court held that the order Annexure E passed by the authorities permitting to shift from the location of the shop under CL-2 license from Basaveshwarnagar to Vijayanagar is a colourable exercise of power and therefore, he quashed the same. Further, he also reserved liberty to respondent No.7 to seek shifting of CL-2 license to another premises built for commercial purpose elsewhere after obtaining orders of the Deputy Commissioner(Excise). Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.7 has preferred these appeals.