- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2573-DB WA No. 100139 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 100139 OF 2023 (EXCISE) BETWEEN: YAMUNA W/O LAXMAN NAIK AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HALADAKATTA, SIDDAPUR, TQ. SIDDAPUR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA 581329. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, MULTI STORIES BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE 2ND FLOOR, TTMC TERMINAL BUS STAND, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU 560027. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER EXCISE UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, KARWAR 581301. 4. THE EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT SIRSI, TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA 581401. 5. THE MYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (MSIL) STATE OWNED COMPANY, REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MSIL, HOUSE NO.36, Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2573-DB WA No. 100139 of 2023 CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU 560052. 6. THE DISTRICT LIAISON OFFICER MYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, KARWAR 581301. 7. KRISHNA S/O GOVIND NAIK AGE. MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. BUILDING NO.19-502-39, WARD NO. 14, HALADAKATTA, SIDDAPUR, TQ. SIDDAPUR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA 581329. 8. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, SIRSI, SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANANDA-581401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADV. FOR R1-R4 & R8; SRI. B.S. GOUTHAM AND SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATES FOR R5 & R6; SRI. JAGADISH PATIL AND SRI. VINAYAK B. HEDGE, ADVOCATES FOR R7) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2021, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, IN WRIT PETITION NO.147392/2020 (EXCISE), MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE, AND THIS WRIT APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED BY ALSO ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITH COST THROUGHOUT, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2573-DB WA No. 100139 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) The appellant is a resident of Haladakatta, Siddapur Taluk, Uttara Kannada District, and she has challenged the recommendation by the fourth respondent to CL[11-C] licence to the fifth respondent, a State owned company. The fourth respondent’s recommendation is preceded by a spot inspection, and it transpires from this inspection that the place identified is at a distance of more than 100 meters from any residential locality that is predominantly inhabited by persons from Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. 2. The appellant has challenged the recommendation in the writ petition in W.P. No.147392/2020 essentially on the ground that the subject premise is within 220 meters from a National Highway, and notwithstanding the same, the fourth respondent has recommended for issuance of CL[11-C] licence to the fifth respondent. The writ Court on examination of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Excise Licenses [General Conditions] Rules, 1967 [for short, “1967 Rules”] has opined that there is no illegality. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2573-DB WA No. 100139 of 2023 3. Sri. J.S. Shetty, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellant may not succeed on the ground that the subject premises is within 220 meters of a National Highway because she cannot dispute that as of the date of the recommendation, the said Highway was de-notified and is no longer a State or a National Highway but this Court must consider that CL[11-C] licence is issued for premises which is within 100 meters from a residential locality which is mostly inhabited by persons from Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes. 4. In rebuttal, Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar, the learned Principal Government Advocate, and Sri. Jagadish Patil, the learned counsel for the fifth respondent, emphasize that the petitioner has not objected to CL-5 licenses operating within the area and the opposition is only to the issuance of CL[11-C] licence which is issued to a public enterprise [the fifth respondent] trying to underscore that the appellant may be set up by vested interests. The learned Principal Government Advocate and the learned counsel emphasize that the spot inspection report is conclusive on the subject premise being beyond 100 meters from different places as contemplated under Rule 5 of 1967 Rules - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2573-DB WA No. 100139 of 2023 including a residential locality which is predominantly in-evident by persons from scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. 5. These rival submissions are considered in the light of this spot mahazar drawn on 19.12.2019 which is categorical that the residential locality as is contemplated under Rule 5 of 1967 Rules is beyond 100 meters and the fact that the petitioner has not raised any objections earlier. When so examined, this Court is of the view that there are no reasons for interference and the appeal stands rejected accordingly. The pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE RSH, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 22