- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3135 WP No. 101094 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.101094 OF 2025 (EXCISE-) BETWEEN: SATHWIK MANTHAGOND, S/O. MALLIKARJUN MANTHAGOND, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OPP. NEELAKANTHESHWAR TEMPLE, GANGAWATI, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583227. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.V. BHAT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUDHA D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER IN KARNATAKA, 2ND FLOOR, TTMC, ‘A’ BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL-583231. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, GANGAVATHI RANGE, GANGAVATHI, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583227. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S KALASURMATH, AGA) ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3135 WP No. 101094 of 2025 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 ORDER AS COMMUNICATED TO THE PETITIONER DT. 24.01.2025 IN NO.EXE/IML/SA.STA/01/2024-25/799/A BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT-INSPECTOR EXCISE, GANGAVATHI RANGE, KOPPAL DISTRICT AS PER ANNEXURE-H AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.3-COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION DT. 25.11.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND THEREBY PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO SHIFT THE LICENSED BUSINESS AS SOUGHT FOR; ISSUE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION DEEMED FIT TO BE GRANTED INCLUDING THE DIRECTION FOR COST. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents No.1 to 4. 2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a) Issue a Writ Of Certiorari or any other writ Order or direction, quashing the order as communicated to the Petitioner dt. 24.01.2025 in No.EXE/IML/Sa.Sta/01/2024-25/799/A by the 4th Respondent-Inspector Excise, Gangavathi Range, Koppal District as per Annexure-H; b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, directing the Respondent No.3-Competent Authority to - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3135 WP No. 101094 of 2025 consider the Application dt. 25.11.2024 as per Annexure-C and thereby permit the Petitioner to shift the licensed business as sought for; c) Issue any other appropriate writ order or direction deemed fit to be granted including the direction for cost. 3. The contention of Sri S.N.Bhat., learned Senior counsel for Smt. Sudha D., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the communication dated 24.01.2025, could not have been issued by respondent No.4-Inspector of Excise, Gangavathi Range, Koppal District. In the event of the said Excise Inspector having come to a conclusion that the location to which the petitioner proposed to shift his excise licence shop under CL-2 was within 100 meters, then the said Excise Inspector ought to have referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, who after obtaining prior approval of the Excise Commissioner to be recorded in writing could permit the location of any shop within a distance 100 meters, but not less than 50 meters from the Institutions like the Hospital, Office or locality as specified in sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967. His submission is that instead of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3135 WP No. 101094 of 2025 doing so, the request of the petitioner has been rejected, which could not have been done. 4. Having gone through the application submitted by the petitioner and the documents produced along with the writ petition, it is clearly seen that the petitioner only sought for shifting of his licence premises under CL-2 to the location specified in the said application. The petitioner did not seek for any exemption as regards the distance from hospital, which is situate at 71 meters distance from the proposed location. The petitioner not having made any request or application to the Deputy Commissioner of Excise or the Commissioner of Excise for grant of exemption by permitting the petitioner to shift to a location less than 100 meters, I am of the considered opinion that there was no requirement for the Inspector of Excise to forward the same to the Deputy Commissioner of Excise or the Commissioner of Excise as contended Sri S.N.Bhat., learned counsel. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3135 WP No. 101094 of 2025 5. I do not find any infirmity in the side order, the petition not making out any ground, stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE AM CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17