STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. PALLAVI BAR AND RESTAURANTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these Intra Court Appeals involving substantially similar facts and legal matrix are presented by the State and its officials to call in question a set of six judgments rendered by two learned Single Judges of this Court whereby W.P. Nos. 101180/2021, 100054/2021, 148012/2020, 102413/2021, 101168/2021 and 101184/2021 filed by the respondents Wine Shop Licensees having been favoured, the impugned punitive action taken against them has been invalidated.

(2.) Learned AGA appearing for the appellant-State vehemently argues that the reconstitution of licencesee partnership firms by induction of others results into the original entities loosing their identity and therefore there is transfer of the lincenses in violation of Rule 17-B of the Karnataka Excise (General Condition of License) Rules, 1967 especially when such reconstitution was not notified to the authorities. He further submits that the learned Single Judges have selectively applied the decision of another learned Single Judge in M/s. Shankar Wines Vs. The Commissioner of Excise,(2017) 6 KLJ 507. He draws attention of the Court about the requirement of licencees taking prior permission of the Commissioner for such reconstitution and informing him the factum of reconstitution of the firm. All these aspects, according to the AGA, having been lost sight of, the impugned judgments suffer form the vice of infirmities and therefore are liable to be voided. Learned advocates appearing for the private respondents who happened to be the writ petitioners resist the appeals by making submission in justification of the reasoning on which the impugned judgments are constructed.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers we decline indulgence in the matters for the following reasons with some observations as under: