DURGA DISTILLERY Vs. EXCISE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the stage of preliminary hearing Sri T.R. Subbanna, learned Government Advocate, vvas directed to take notice for the respondents. Accordingly, he took notice. He has also secured the records. As the petition can be decided on the basis of the records produced by the learned Government Advocate and also the records produced by the petitioner along with the Writ Petition and the additional statement of facts, Rule is issued and the petition is heard for final disposal.

(2.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus (1) directing the Excise Commissioner- respondent-1 to issue licence for the manufacture of Indian made liquors out of rectified spirit as sought for by the petitioner and approved by Government, under the provisions of Karnataka Excise (Distillery and Warehouse) Rules, 1967, and also to issue the bottling licence under the provisions of Karnataka Excise (Bottling of Liquor) Rules, 1967 for enabling the bottling of, such liquor manufactured by the petitioner; (2) directing respondent-2 State Government to see to the issue of such licences forthwith by the Excise Commissioner, and (3) directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner for the loss of income suffered by the petitioner by reason of the failure to issue the licence for the period 9-1-1988 till date and for such further period as may be taken for issue of such licences.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that the State Government before the imposition of the President's Rule accorded prior sanction for grant of licence to the petitioner to manufacture I.M.L. out of rectified spirit and also ordered for allotment of 25,000 litres of rectified spirit per month by its order dated 6-1-1988 bearing No. HD 51 EFL 84, addressed to the Excise Commissioner, Annexure- C; that in spite of the prior sanction granted by the State Government as per Annexure-C, the licence to manufacture I.M.L. out of rectified spirit has not been granted and allotment of quota of 25,000 litres of rectified spirit per month has not been made; that even after the imposition of the President's Rule, the State Government, on the report made by the committee appointed to go into all the applications and suggest the norms, issued a General Order No. HD 78 EFL 88 dated 7-6-1989. Annexure-O; that in accordance with the aforesaid general order Annexure-O the case of the petitioner fell within sub-clause (ii) of the Government Order, Annexure-O. Therefore the State Government issued another order dated 2-8-1989 bearing No. HD 160 EFL. 88 directing the Excise Commissioner to grant the request of the petitioner [or issue of a licence as previously instructed on 4-7-1989.