- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1062 WP No. 27078 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.27078 OF 2024 (EXCISE) BETWEEN: 1. V GOPAL, S/O VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.214, 2ND CROSS, KASTURINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 043, (SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED) THOUGH HIS G.P.A. HOLDER SMT. SWARNALATHA GOPAL, W/O V.GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO. 214, 2ND CROSS, KASTURINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 043. …PETITIONER (BY SRI G K BHAT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT SUDHA D, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU -560 001. 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER IN KARNATAKA, 2ND FLOOR, TTMC,'A' BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1062 WP No. 27078 of 2024 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - (BUD-7), BANGALORE - 560 010. 5. THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, NANDINI LAYOUT, RANGE-5, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT (BUD-1), NO.62, 3RD FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, YESHAWANTHAPURA INDUSRIAL SUBURB, BENGALURU - 560 022. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B MANJUNATH, AGA FOR RESPONDENTS) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE COMMUNICATION CAPTIONED AS ENDORSEMENT DATED 02-08-2024 IN NO.EXE/NUM.LAY.VA. 05/CL/09/02/2023-24 SENT BY THE R5 AS PER ANNEXURE-R 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 ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard Sri G.K. Bhat, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Smt. Sudha D., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. This petition is filed seeking writ of certiorari to quash the direction/endorsement dated 02.08.2024 issued by the 5th respondent, which is marked at Annexure-R. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1062 WP No. 27078 of 2024 3. Certain facts are not in dispute. The petitioner is ailing and bedridden. He was possessing CL-9 licence, which was issued by the 3rd respondent earlier and now the power is with 4th respondent. 4. The petitioner applied for renewal of the licence after its expiry, as the law was amended to enable the licence holder, whose licence has expired to apply for renewal on payment of prescribed fees. Accordingly Rs.1,22,06,100/- was paid on 09.10.2019, as can be noticed from Annexure-B. The document at Annexure-B is not in dispute. However, the application for renewal was not granted on the premise that the petitioner is unsound. This order is called in question by filing W.P.No.9187/2022 (Excise). This Court has set aside the endorsement rejecting the application for renewal of licence, wherein the respondents had taken a contention that the petitioner is unsound. The matter was remitted back to the authority to consider the application dated 18.12.2020 for renewal of CL-9 licence in terms of Rule 5A of the applicable Rules. The respondents again rejected the application for renewal vide order dated 14.07.2022. The said endorsement was again questioned by filing the writ petition No.19465/2023. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1062 WP No. 27078 of 2024 The said writ petition was again allowed and this Court for the second time reiterated the fact that the petitioner is not unsound. 5. It is relevant to note that when the second petition was filed, it was the wife of the petitioner, who represented the petitioner as a Power of Attorney holder. The operative portion of the order in the second writ petition reads as under :- "If the petitioner's wife files an application in terms of the liberty now granted as his power of attorney, the fourth respondent shall consider the same within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of such representation" 6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner's wife filed an application for renewal in terms of the liberty granted by this Court on 12.09.2023. The said application is in Form CL-A1 marked at Annexure-Q. The respondents have rejected the application vide endorsement dated 02.08.2024, which is questioned in this petition. The endorsement would reveal that the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1062 WP No. 27078 of 2024 petitioner is required to furnish the documents referred to in Reference No.1 of order dated 25.07.2024. The said letter dated 25.07.2024 is the communication sent by 2nd respondent to 4th respondent. The condition No.1 in the said communication would indicate that the application is not filed in prescribed form. Sri.Y.D. Gururaj, Superintendent of Excise, who is present before the Court submits that the application is filed in the prescribed form i.e., Form CL-A1 marked at Annexure-Q. 7. It is relevant to note that when the application was filed earlier, the applications were not rejected on the premise that requisite documents were not filed. However, the application was rejected on the premise that the petitioner is unsound. This Court on two occasions has held that the contention that the petitioner is unsound, is untenable and rejected the earlier endorsements. 8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that petitioner has orally instructed to submit original power of attorney executed - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1062 WP No. 27078 of 2024 by the petitioner in favour of his wife, who is the applicant on behalf of the petitioner. 9. Sri Y.D. Gururaj, the Superintendent of Excise, who is present before the Court would submit that the petitioner is required to submit the original Power of Attorney. 10. Learned Senior Counsel would submit the original Power of Attorney is misplaced. It is noticed that when the second writ petition was filed, this Court has accepted the petition filed by the wife, the Power of Attorney holder, and this Court has permitted the wife to file the renewal application as a Power of Attorney Holder. That means the Power of Attorney is accepted by this Court. More than anything else, the petitioner/executant, the husband of the agent is not disputing the execution of Power of Attorney. 11. This being the position, as long as the Power of Attorney is not revoked, it is not open to the respondents to say that the petitioner has to furnish the original Power - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1062 WP No. 27078 of 2024 of Attorney. Since no other grounds available under Rule 4B of Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1968, is cited to reject the application, this Court is of the view that the petition has to be allowed and impugned endorsement has to be quashed. 12. Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner has to invoke the provisions relating to appeal and he has not exhausted the said remedy. 13. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that in the instant case, the impugned order at Annexure-S is issued by the Appellate Authority. Hence the remedy before the Appellate Authority is not an efficacious remedy. It is also his further submission that before this Court, the petitioner has approached twice and this Court has already declared that the petitioner is not unsound and this Court has already permitted the wife to file an application for renewal as a Power of Attorney holder. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1062 WP No. 27078 of 2024 14. This being the position, this Court is of the view that a case is made out to entertain the writ petition despite, the statutory remedy of appeal provided under the Rule. 15. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement is quashed. Respondent No.4 is directed to renew the licence granted to the petitioner subject to payment of fees, if any. The order shall be complied within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Court. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72