- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8797 WP No. 2047 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 2047 OF 2025 (EXCISE) BETWEEN: M/S. SHREE SAI ENTERPRISES, A REGISTERED FIRM, BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, T.H. MUDDUKRISHNAIAH, S/O HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT TALAGAWARA, KODIGEHALLI POST, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 561 203 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.K. BHAT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. D. SUDHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA FINANCE DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-01 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER IN KARNATAKA 2ND FLOOR, Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8797 WP No. 2047 of 2025 TTMC 'A' BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 001 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXERCISE, BUD-1, NO.62, 3RD FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, IST MAIN ROAD, YASHWANTHAPURA INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 022 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. MANJUNATH, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED. 21.10.2024 IN NO.EXE/BUD- 1/VA./YA.VA.SWATHANTHRA RVB/05/2023-24 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-H AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the order dated 21.10.2024 in terms of the said order the respondent No.3 has rejected the application of the petitioner seeking license under Form-2. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8797 WP No. 2047 of 2025 2. The application dated 05.03.2018 seeking license for sale of retail sale of bulk beer is rejected. It is noticed that from the said order marked at Annexure-H. The fourth respondent has rejected the application on the premise that the Excise Commissioner has ordered not to issue the license in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the application is rejected. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that, 4th respondent-the Excise Commissioner is the appellate authority under the relevant Rules for issuance of license. When an application is filed seeking license the competent authority has to independently apply mind and has to consider the application. The competent authority instead of deciding the application on its merit has sought opinion/permission of the appellate authority and the appellate authority has suggested not to issue the license. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that, the application is not in prescribed format - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8797 WP No. 2047 of 2025 and the petitioner is not entitled to the license which he has sought for. 5. This Court has considered the contentions raised the bar and perused the records. 6. It is not required to elaborate that when an application is filed before the competent authority, which is empowered to issue the license or reject the license, the Authority is required to apply its mind on the application filed by the party and thereafter, has to pass an appropriate order considering the merits of the application. The competent authority is not supposed to seek the opinion of the appellate authority or any other higher officer. As can be noticed from the impugned order, 4th respondent has sought the opinion of the higher authority. This is wholly impermissible. Accordingly, the order is set aside. 7. This Court has also noticed the fact that the impugned order is appealable order. What is required to be noticed the appellate authority itself has passed an - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8797 WP No. 2047 of 2025 order directing the 4th respondent to reject the application. Accordingly, the petitioner cannot be asked to file an appeal before the authority which has already decided to reject the application. Thus the writ petition is entertained notwithstanding the appellate remedy. 8. It is also stated by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the application has to be considered by the Deputy Commissioner. In that event, the order of 4th respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Excise is without jurisdiction. Hence, the Deputy Commissioner shall consider the application in terms of the observations made. 9. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 21.10.2024 is set aside. 4th respondent is directed to consider the application dated 05.03.2018 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8797 WP No. 2047 of 2025 in accordance with law. In case the petitioner is required to furnish any other documents to make a claim for a license which you have sought, the petitioner shall submit the same within 2 weeks from the date of this order. After receipt of the records from the petitioner, 3rd respondent shall pass appropriate orders within 4 weeks. iii. It is made clear that nothing is expressed on the merits of the matter. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE KBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17 CT:SNN