- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16762 WP No. 11737 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.11737 OF 2025 (EXCISE) BETWEEN: 1. M/S VALLEY PUBLIC SCHOOL NH-4, NARASAPURA, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 133, REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD MASTER. 2. SRI SHIVARAJU, S/O CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NARASAPURA VILLAGE & HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 102. 3. SRI MANJUNATH V., S/O VENKATACHALAPATHY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT 'LAKSHMI KUTEERA' 12TH CROSS, BEHIND RAJA BUILDING, KARANJEE KATTE, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MUNIRAJA M., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16762 WP No. 11737 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563 101. 3. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, EXCISE COMMISSIONER OFFICE, II FLOOR, BMTS BUS DEPOT, SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. 4. THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, GANDHINAGARA, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563 101. 5. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR - 563 101. 6. SRI B.N. JAYAPRAKASH, S/O N. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BBMP EX-CORPORATOR, BASAVANAPURA, WARD NO.53, R/AT SIGEHALLI VILLAGE, K.R PURAM HOBLI, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16762 WP No. 11737 of 2025 BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 016. …RESPONDENTS (BY MS. RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT BY DIRECT RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 02.12.2024, 10.12.2024, 04.01.2025, 08.01.2025 AND 10.01.2025 NOT TO GRANT OR TO CANCEL LICENSE/PERMISSION IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT NO.6 FOR OPENING CL-7 BAR AND RESTAURANT AT NARASAPURA VILLAGE AND HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT AS PER ANNEXURE-A, A1 TO A7. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioners are either an Educational Institution in Narsapura Village or the residents of Narsapura Village. This Narsapura Village is in the Kolar District. They have filed this petition for directions to the second to fourth respondents to consider their different representations against grant - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16762 WP No. 11737 of 2025 of CL-7 license to the sixth respondent in respect of a property, which they assert is in the prohibited vicinity of an Educational Institution, a Temple, and a Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe Colony. This Court has called upon Ms. Rashmi Rao, the learned High Court Government Pleader, to secure instructions on the status of the six respondent's application. Ms.Rashmi Rao has placed on record copies of the Report dated 14.02.2025 and the Recommendation dated 15.02.2025 by the jurisdictional Excise Inspector. 2. It is seen from these that the jurisdictional Excise Inspector has recommended issuance of CL-7 license to the sixth respondent observing that the Educational Institution, Colony and the Temple are beyond the restricted limit. However, Sri Muniraja M, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that that he has secured instructions in the light of the Report and his instructions are that the Excise - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16762 WP No. 11737 of 2025 Inspector is wrong in opining that the afore Institution/Temple/Colony are beyond the prescribed distance, and the learned counsel emphasizes that the mahazar is drawn without opportunity to the petitioners. 3. Sri Muniraja M submits that, with even the Authorities admitting that the application for issuance of license is yet to be considered by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise [the fourth respondent], this Court must dispose of the petition directing the fourth respondent to conduct fresh mahazar and decide on whether such license must be issued. In response, Ms. Rashmi Rao submits that if the petitioners wants to dispute the factual matrix and in the event, there is a decision to issue a license in favour of the sixth respondent, the petitioners can avail remedy under Section 61 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 [for short, 'the Excise Act']. Ms.Rashmi Rao reiterates that the petitioners are not - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16762 WP No. 11737 of 2025 justified in contending that the afore facilities are within the prohibited distance and they are separated by a flyover. 4. These rival submissions are examined in terms of the Karnataka Excise Licences [General Conditions] Rules, 1967 [for short, the 1967 Rules]. The jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Excise will have to examine the specifics to find out whether the Licence could be issued in the light of the restrictions in the 1967 Rules, and this would require a meticulous examination of the factual assertions. The jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Excise cannot, only because of the mahazar and the Report submitted by the Excise Inspector, decide on the sixth respondent's application because under Rule 5[2] of the 1967 Rules he is enjoined to make such inquiry as he deems fit necessary to approve the premises for a liquor shop. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16762 WP No. 11737 of 2025 5. The petitioners seriously dispute the assertion that the facilities as aforementioned are beyond the prescribed distance. This Court, in the light of the inquiry that must be under Rule 5(2) of the 1967 Rules, and to ensure that there is no precipitation, is persuaded to dispose of this petition directing the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Excise (the fourth respondent) to examine all material, and if necessary to direct a fresh inspection and decide on the sixth respondent's application. 6. Further, the fourth respondent must consider the sixth respondent’s application as aforesaid after the next three [3] weeks so that the decision is not seen to be taken in haste. Furthermore, if there is a decision in favour of the sixth respondent, the petitioners must avail the remedy under Section 61 of the Excise Act. In the light of the afore, the following: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16762 WP No. 11737 of 2025 ORDER [A] The petition stands disposed of directing the fourth respondent to consider the merits of the sixth respondent's application strictly under Rule 5(2) of the 1967 Rules after an inquiry but not just based on the Excise Inspector's Report dated 14.02.2025 and the Recommendation dated 15.02.2025 by the jurisdictional Excise Inspector. [B] The fourth respondent is directed to pass orders only after four [4] weeks from today. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5