C RAMESH Vs. STATE OF KARANATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first petitioner in this writ petition is the proprietor of a bar and restaurant by name Chef-inn Regency and having a licence to run a bar and restaurant under the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short, the Act) having obtained a licence under the provisions of Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian & Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1968, issued in Form CL-9, popularly known as CL-9 licence, which was current at the time of presentation of the writ petition.

(2.) IT is the version of the first petitioner that the petitioner is desirous of employing women as hostess for providing better facilities to the customers for projecting that the facilities provided at his hotel are comparable to international standards and is keen to employ the second and the third petitioners, who have applied for the job of hostess in the first petitioner's restaurant so that they can function as hostess in all sections of the hotel including the bar and restaurant; that the first petitioner being satisfied about the experience and suitability for the job is desirous of providing employment to the second and the third petitioners in his restaurant, but in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act read with Rule 9 of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 (for short, the Rules), as the first petitioner cannot so employ the second and the third petitioners without obtaining a permission from the Deputy Commissioner in writing in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, but the so-called permission having become an illusion, as Rule 9 of the Rules totally prohibits employment of women by a licencee in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the Rules petitioners have joined together to file this petition questioning the legality of these statutory provisions.

(3.) THE second and the third petitioners, who are persons aspiring for the job of hostess in the first petitioner's hotel, are aggrieved that their job opportunity is lost due to the provisions of the Act and the Rules referred to above. In such circumstances, the petitioners have joined together to challenge the legality of the provisions contending that a provision of this nature is unconstitutional, is violative of Articles 14, 15, 16, 19, 21 and 39 of the Constitution of India. The provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India is invoked in the context of affectation by this provision on the second and the third petitioners.