V R PRAKASH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the order Annexure-A dated 18.03.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru- Respondent No.2 directing him to select a non-objectionable place for his conditionally renewed CL-9 licence and make an application for shifting of the said liquor vending shop before 15.06.2016, failing which, the licence will liable to be withdrawn under Section 30 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and the licence premises may be liable to be closed down.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Notification Sl.No.58 Annexure-C dated 17.04.1998, which is quoted below, submitted that the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to pass the said impugned communication/order and threaten to withdraw the licence itself on the purported ground that the liquor vending shop is situated on a State Highway. Relying upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sri.M.C.Raju vs. State of Karnataka & others in W.A.No.3060/2010(Excise) decided on 30.09.2010, learned counsel urged that only the Deputy Commissioner (Excise) has jurisdiction to pass such an order and the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to pass the same and therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed.

(3.) On the other hand, learned AGA for the respondent-Departments, raised an objection of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner under Section 61 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and also submitted that the impugned communication Annexure-A dated 18.03.2016 is a consequential notice upon the conditional renewal of CL-9 licence given to the petitioner for the year 2015-16 by the Deputy Commissioner (Excise), who himself observed in that order that the licence premises is near the State Highway which comes under the restrictions under Rule 5 of the Karnataka Excise Licence (General Condition) Rules, 1967 and this was done after the Deputy Commissioner (Excise) held an enquiry and confirmed that the licence premises of the petitioner was at the objectionable place on State Highway.