SHASHIKALA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has assailed the notice dated 28.6.2019 issued by the respondent No.4, Annexure-F to the writ petition inter alia seeking a direction to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to consider the renewal of licence in Form CL-9 of the petitioner as per Annexure-N and for other consequential reliefs.

(2.) The petitioner is claiming to be a transferee of the licence in Form CL-9 which was originally standing in the name of M/s Hotel Rajmahal. The same has been transferred in favour of the petitioner by order dated 30.6.2016. Consequently, necessary endorsement has been made on the licence and the petitioner has been carrying on the license business during its validity. It is submitted that while the license was standing in the name of M/s.Hotel Rajmahal, a demand notice was issued by the respondent No.4 demanding a sum of Rs.56,59,900.00 towards the fine amount for violation of Rule 14(2) of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules 1968 ('Rules' for short). Aggrieved by the same, the said licensee (M/s.Hotel Rajmahal) had preferred an appeal under Sec. 61(2) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 ('Act' for short). The appeal came to be disposed of on 25.1.2017 setting aside the impugned demand notice and remitting the matter back to respondent No.4-Deputy Commissioner concerned to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant M/s.Hotel Rajmahal and look into the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the same, M/s. Hotel Rajmahal had preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ('KAT' for short) at Bangalore in Appeal No.235/2017. It is submitted that the KAT has not passed any interim order. Now the matter is reserved for orders. During the pendency of the appeal proceedings before the Tribunal, the licence has been transferred in the name of the petitioner herein.