NARASEGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to renew lapsed CL-2 licences of the petitioners by accepting 50% of the prescribed licence fee for the lapsed period and full fee for the current year. They have also sought for a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from demanding the additional licence fee for the lapsed period of the licence of the petitioners. Consequently, the petitioners have sought for quashing the demand notices, by which the respondents have demanded full licence fee for the lapsed period.

(2.) IN support of the arguments, Sri GK. Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners relied upon the provisions of rule-5a of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors)Rules, 1968, (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'rules') and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W. A. No. 4/2007, disposed of on 26-3-2007. It is contended by Sri G. K. Bhat that Rule 5-A (3) of the rules mandates the respondents to collect only 50% of the licence fee prescribed under Rule 8 of the Rules in respect of the entire period for which the licence had lapsed for the purpose of maintaining continuity of licence. According to him the Division Bench of this Court in W. A. No. 4/2007, disposed of on 26-3-2007 has held that the State government cannot collect more than 50% of the licence fee in respect of lapsed period of licence. Sri Udaya Holla, the learned Advocate General opposed the writ petitions by inter alia contending that the State is justified in demanding the full licence fee for the lapsed period of licence. He relies upon the judgments of this Court in W. P. No. 47312/2003 (disposed of on 11-2-2004), W. P. No. 10064 (disposed of on 7-2-1995) and W. A. NO. 1204/1995 (disposed of on 26-6-1997), to contend that the State is entitled to collect the entire licence fee for the lapsed period also. It is further contended by Sri Udaya Holla that the legislature thought it fit to give concession to the persons whose licence have lapsed prior to 1-7-1999, because, such persons may be put to greater hardship if are directed to pay full licence fee for the longer period. Thus, according to him, the cut off date is 1-7-1999.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that all the petitioners in these writ petitions have obtained CL-2 licences in the year 2001-02 and onwards. They have renewed the licences for one or two years later. Thereafter the licences are not renewed. Thus, it is clear that licence are granted in favour of the petitioners subsequent to 1 -7-1999 and obviously the same have lapsed thereafter.