- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17919 WP No. 8978 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8978 OF 2025 (EXCISE) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. S. N. PUSHPALATHA W/O S. N. NATARAJA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO. 500 KANTHAPPA STREET, SARJAPUR, BANGALORE 562125. 2. SHRI. S.N. NAVEEN KUMAR, S/O S. N. NATARAJA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.9, 23RD MAIN ROAD, 17TH CROSS JP NAGAR 5 PHASE, BANGALORE-560078. …PETITIONERS (BY DR. GIRI KUMAR S V.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,. BANGALORE 560001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, EXCISE DEPARTMENT. VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE- 560001. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17919 WP No. 8978 of 2025 3. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER 2ND FLOOR, TTMC A BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE 560 027. 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560009. 5. TASHILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL -562106. 6. M/S SURAPANA BOARDING AND LODGING REP. BY HANUMANTHAPPA YELLAPPA S/O YELLAPPA, MANAGING PARTNER ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL- 562106 7. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MUNICIPAL OFFICE ATTIBELE ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL - 562 106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.MANJUNATHA., AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI.G.K. BHAT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. D. SUDHA, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER BEARING NO. EXC/BUD-8/VA- 50/COMPLAINT /11/2023-24 DATED 27.01.2025 AT ANX-K; DIRECT THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DIST TO CONSIDER THE ATTIBELE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION HAVE ISSUED AN NOTICE TO THE DURAPANA BOARDING AND LODGING ATTIBELE MAIN ROAD DATED 31.12.2024 VIDE ANNX-G AND COMMUNICATION LETTER TO THE EXCISE - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17919 WP No. 8978 of 2025 DEPARTMENT DATED 6.01.2025 STATING THAT IT IS AN OBJECTIONABLE AREA AND NOT TO GRANT LIQUOR LICENSE VIDE ANNX-H AND TO CANCEL THE GRANT LICENSE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioners have called in question the order dated 27.01.2025 [Annexure -K]. The jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner [Excise], by this impugned order dated 27.01.2025, has informed the first petitioner that the premises for which the contesting respondent has applied for CL-7 license is beyond the objectionable limits under the Karnataka Excise Licenses [General Conditions] Rules, 1967 [for short, 'the Rules'] but the application is still pending consideration. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17919 WP No. 8978 of 2025 2. However, this Court must record that after this Endorsement the Deputy Commissioner [Excise] has issued another Endorsement dated 15.02.2025, which is called in question before this Court in WP No.6336/2025. This Court has disposed of this petition observing that even if a Government Building is within a distance of 100 meters, it would be open to the Excise Commissioner, as is contemplated under Rule 5[2] of the Rules, to grant a prior approval by a reasoned order in writing. 3. Dr. Giri Kumar S V, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that in the light of this Court's aforesaid order, the petition could be disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file their objections with the Excise Commissioner for due consideration. Sri G.K. Bhat, the learned Senior Counsel for the sixth respondent and Sri B. Manjunatha, the Additional Government Advocate for - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17919 WP No. 8978 of 2025 the first to fifth respondents, are heard in the light of this request. 4. This Court is of the view that the petitioners must be at liberty to file their objections in writing with the Excise Commissioner so that all circumstances are duly considered to prevent further litigation but the petitioners must file their objections with the Excise Commissioner within a week from today without waiting for a certified copy of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly and once again reiterating that the Excise Commissioner must reason in writing why prior approval must be or must not be granted. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr