K BALAKRISHNA RAO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONSTITUTIONAL validity of sections 68-b, 68-c and 68-d of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (hereinafter called the 'act') as inserted by Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1995 and Section 3 of the amending act has been challenged in these petitions on various grounds. However, keeping in view the fact that Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1995 had received the assent of the president of India on 21-2-1995, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have restricted their arguments and challenged the vires of the offending sections mainly on the ground of being violative of the guarantee of equality conferred by article 14 of the Constitution of india. It is submitted alternatively that non-providing of the alternative forum for redressal of grievances of the persons dealing with the liquor trade and bound by the act have resulted in miscarriage of Justice and that the officers of the excise department have been made judges of their own cause. It is further alleged that the offending sections even amount to taking away the powers of the high court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution which is admittedly a basic feature of the Constitution not being permissible for any legislature to enact the law in a manner which takes away the constitutional remedies provided to the citizens.

(2.) THE petitioners in all the writ petitions are excise contractors. they are stated to have taken on lease the rights of retail vend of arrack in various parts of the state on rental basis. Huge sums of money were allegedly payable by them to the excise department. Disputing their liabilities the excise contractors are stated to have filed several suits in various courts and obtained temporary injunctions regarding the payment of the amounts sought be recovered from them by the excise department under the Provisions of the act. Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1995 is stated to have been enacted with the sole purpose of depriving the petitioners their rights of seeking judicial remedies against the alleged illegal action of the respondent-authorities. The impugned act is stated to be without jurisdiction not being within the legislative competence of the state legislature. The offending Provisions are stated to be unconstitutional as allegedly being highly unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminative. it is also termed to be violative of article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution as it allegedly puts restrictions on the rights of the petitioners to carry on business of their choice. The amending act is also alleged to be violative of Section 9 of CPC as it takes away the right of the citizens to move the civil court for the redressal of their grievances particularly when such grievances relate to the civil rights. Persons similarly situated, while dealing with commercial activities in the state are alleged to have been discriminated resulting in the violation of the right of equality.

(3.) IN the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the writ petitions filed are the result of mala fide action of the petitioners who want to protract the litigation with the purpose of avoiding the payment of their liabilities running into lakhs of rupees. The petitioners have been styled as habitual litigants who intend to riggle out of the consequence of the agreements executed with the state. They are stated to have resorted to filing of writ petitions, original suits, first appeals and revision petitions with the oblique motive of not paying the amounts due from them. No citizen has any fundamental or legal right to carry on the business and trade in liquor. The offending Provisions are stated to be legal, valid and according to law which are claimed to have not taken any of the rights of the petitioners. the petitioners are claimed to be having other remedies available to them under the act. The right to approach the civil court is stated to be not a fundamental right and is always subject to the restrictions imposed by Section 9 of the CPC itself.