- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33075-DB WP No. 9870 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT PETITION NO. 9870 OF 2025 (EXCISE-PIL) BETWEEN: 1. PAVITHRA G W/O E. LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS PRESIDENT OF DALITA SENE KARNATAKA STATE COMMITTEE, WOMEN WING KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD NEAR SWANANDA ASHRAMA AGARA COLONY BENGALURU SOUTH - 560 062. …PETITIONER (BY SRI G.K. BHAT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI KALYANI PARAMESHWARA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA 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. Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33075-DB WP No. 9870 of 2025 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, 1ST FLOOR, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION OFFICE BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL - 562 110. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE 2ND FLOOR, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION OFFICE BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBALI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL - 562 110. 5. MYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT,1956 MSIL HOUSE CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-1 TO 4) 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 WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DT. 23.09.2016 AS PER ANNEXURE-B IN No. FD/15/EFL 2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE CONSEQUENT CIRCULAR DT.06.10.2016 AS PER ANNEXURE-C IN No. ECI/MSIL/2016 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No. 2 & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33075-DB WP No. 9870 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU,CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The petitioner has filed the present public interest litigation, inter alia impugning a Government Order dated 23.09.2016 issued by respondent No.1 and the consequent circular dated 06.10.2016. In addition, the petitioner also prays that directions be issued to respondent Nos.1 to 4 to refrain from entertaining applications from respondent No. 5 for grant of license Form 11C, unless the requirements of Rule 18 of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967, is complied with. 2. It is the petitioner’s case that Form 11C licenses have been issued to respondent No.5, which is wholly owned by the State of Karnataka. However, the said company is not operating the liquor licences but has effectively engaged other individual retailers to operate the outlets. It is the petitioner's contention that all liquor vends must necessarily be operated by respondent No. 5 or their direct employees and it is not permissible for them to engage any other person on contractual basis. The learned counsel appearing - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33075-DB WP No. 9870 of 2025 for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 3(11C) of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968, which reads as under: "(11-C) -- Retail shop licence issued to Government Companies:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 12, a licence under this clause in Form CL(11C) shall be granted by the Deputy Commissioner, only to such companies owned or controlled by the State Government and specified by the Government, for possession and sale of liquor in retail shops with a condition that such shops shall be exclusively maintained by them and shall not be transferred and sub-leased to others. Consumption of liquor within the licensed premises shall not be allowed under this category of licences." 3. A plain reading of Sub-rule (11C) of Rule 3 of the afore- mentioned rules, as set out above indicates that a licencee cannot transfer or sub-lease liquor retail shops. However, it does not proscribe the licencee from engaging services of third parties, provided that the liquor vends are maintained by the licencee and are not transferred or subleased. 4. In view of the above, the contention that it is necessary for respondent No.5 to operate and manage all liquor vends by its employees, is not sustainable. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33075-DB WP No. 9870 of 2025 5. Having stated the above, we also leave it open for the petitioner to make a necessary representation to the concerned authorities in the event the petitioner has knowledge of specific cases (with specific names and identities) where liquor shops have been either transferred or sub-leased to third parties, or if any other rule is otherwise violated. 6. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38