- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:448 WP No. 202429 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.202429 OF 2021 (EXCISE) BETWEEN: SMT.RAMABAI W/O LATE NAGENDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT PRAGATHI COLONY, BADEPUR, SEDAM ROAD, KALABURAGI-585105. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SUDHA D, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER IN KARNATAKA, 2ND FLOOR, TTMC ‘A’ BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE KALABURAGI DISTRICT, KALABURAGI-585101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIRANAGOUDA M. BIRADAR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS PER ANNEXURE-K DTD 9.11.2021 IN NO. Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:448 WP No. 202429 of 2021 ECI/28/IML/MANAVI/2019-20 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order dated 09.11.2021 passed by the respondent No.1 rejecting her request for transfer of a licence in Form CL-2. 2. The petitioner contends that her husband was granted with a licence in Form CL-2 during the year 1990- 91, which was however, discontinued from the excise year 1991-92. Later, the husband of the petitioner died on 18.12.2010 without getting the licence renewed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for renewal of the lapsed/discontinued licence and to transfer it to the name of M/s. Babaladakar Wines, a partnership firm purportedly constituted amongst her children. The Deputy Commissioner of Excise/respondent No.2 did not renew - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:448 WP No. 202429 of 2021 the licence and a letter dated 17.07.2017 was communicated to the petitioner. Despite that, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise/respondent No.2 again in terms of a letter dated 23.01.2020 sought directions from the office of the respondent No.1 regarding consideration of the petitioner’s request dated 13.01.2020. The petitioner then filed W.P.No.201542/2021 seeking for a direction to consider her representation. This Court disposed off the said writ petition in terms of the order dated 25.08.2021 and directed the respondent No.1 to consider the case of the petitioner as provided under Rule 5(A)(iii) of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1968 and pass appropriate orders. Following the aforesaid direction, the respondent No.1 has held proceedings and has passed the impugned order refusing to entertain the request of the petitioner. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:448 WP No. 202429 of 2021 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under Rule 5(A)(iii) of the Rules, 1968, a lapsed licence can also be renewed but subject to the condition that the petitioner paid up 50% of the licence fee for the previous years. She further contends that Rule 17A of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) (Amendment) Rules, 2014, is amended and the words “during the currency of the licence or lease” is omitted, meaning thereby that even a lapsed licence could be renewed. Thus, she contends that the respondent No.1 misdirected himself in holding that a lapsed licence cannot be renewed. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had not disclosed true and correct facts before this Court when W.P.No.201542/2021 was filed. He contends that by the time the writ petition was filed, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise/respondent No.2 had already rejected the request of the petitioner by an order dated - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:448 WP No. 202429 of 2021 17.07.2017. Therefore, the petitioner was bound to challenge the said order before the appropriate authority as provided under Section 61(2) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. He therefore, contends that the petitioner, who has not challenged the order passed by the respondent No.2, has to be relegated back to the remedy of an appeal prescribed and provided under Section 61(3) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 by considering the proceeding before the respondent No.1 as a proceeding under Section 61(2) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. Besides this, he contends that the husband of the petitioner died on 18.12.2010 and therefore, the licence stood lapsed. He therefore, contends that the licence had expired in the year 1991 and the licensee did not make any attempts during his lifetime to get the same renewed or restored. He contends that under Rule 5(A) of the Rules, 1968, the petitioner is not entitled for renewal of the licence, as the provision is made for renewal of the licence within 30 days from the date of its lapse and not after several years of its - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:448 WP No. 202429 of 2021 lapsing, as several considerations arise, while renewing such lapsed licences. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 7. The initial request of the petitioner for transfer of the licence and renewal was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Kalaburagi District/respondent No.2 in terms of the order dated 17.07.2017. The same is found from the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1. Ideally, the petitioner must have challenged the said order before the respondent No.1 in an appeal under Section 61(2) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. However, the petitioner seems to have colluded with the Deputy Commissioner of Excise by submitting another letter dated 13.01.2020 for renewal of the license, following which the Deputy Commissioner of Excise/respondent No.2 had addressed a communication dated 23.01.2020 to the respondent No.1. The petitioner thereafter, followed it up - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:448 WP No. 202429 of 2021 by filing a writ petition before this Court and obtaining a direction to the respondent No.1 to consider the request for transfer and renewal of licence. This Court directed the respondent No.1 to consider the same in accordance with law and as provided under Rule 5(A)(iii) of the Rules, 1968. 8. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate, the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material fact in not disclosing the order dated 17.07.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Kalaburagi in W.P.No.201542/2021. Therefore, the order passed by the respondent No.1 rejecting the request of the petitioner shall be construed as an order passed under Section 61(2) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. Accordingly, the petitioner is bound to challenge the order passed by the respondent No.1 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Hence, this writ petition cannot be entertained and the petitioner cannot be allowed to short- - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:448 WP No. 202429 of 2021 circuit the remedy of an appeal prescribed under the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. 9. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file an appeal against the order passed by the respondent No.1 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal as provided under Section 61(3) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40