- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8869 WP No. 103936 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 103936 OF 2025 (EXCISE) BETWEEN: ARAVIND JORAPUR S/O. SHIVAJIRAO JORAPUR AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, CL-2 LICENSEE, TMC NO.567, NEAR BUS STAND BYLAHONGALA, BELGAUM DIST-591 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.K.BHAT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. SUDHA D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ADDL CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIOR IN KARNATAKA 2ND FLOOR TTMC, ‘A’ BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE BELAGAVI DIST (SOUTH), BELAGAVI-590 001. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE BYLAHONGAL RANGE, BELAGAVI DIST-591 102. 5. BABU S/O. SHIVAJIRAO JORAPUR AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, PLOT NO.67 AND 69, BANJARA CROSS, SOLAPURA ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586 101, VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4) VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8869 WP No. 103936 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 RO DIRECTION, QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 31.05.2025 IN NO. EXE/IML/SA.STHA/01/2024-25 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE AS PER ANNEXURE; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 TO CONSIDER AFRESH THE APPLICATION DATED 23.05.2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-L MADE BY THE PETITIONER IN TERMS OF LAW AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) 1. Heard learned senior counsel Sri.G.K.Bhat on behalf of Smt.Sudha D for the petitioner. Learned HCGP Sri.P.N.Hatti accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the impugned order passed by Inspector of Excise- respondent No.4 vide order dated 31.05.2025. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and respondent No.5 are brothers. Father of the petitioner Shivajirao Jorapur was engaged in retail sales of liquor on the strength of License in Form CL-2 issued under Rule 3(2) of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8869 WP No. 103936 of 2025 the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rule 1968. Father of the petitioner and respondent No.5 died on 04.04.2000. Pursuant to the death of father of petitioner and respondent No.5, license has been transferred jointly in the name of the petitioner and his brother respondent No.5 as the legal heirs. This being the state of affairs, business was originally carried on in the premises No.656 of Bylahongal town in Belagavi district. The petitioner made application for permission to shift business from his original place to the premises No.242/A of the said town. The competent authority who is the respondent No.3, the Deputy Commissioner had permitted shifting of the location of the business by its order dated 02.11.2018 as the business was run together by the petitioner and respondent No.5. Meanwhile certain differences arose between the brothers. The suit came to be filed in O.S.No.121/2024, in which an application came to be filed for temporary injunction which came to be dismissed. This being the state of affairs, with regard to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8869 WP No. 103936 of 2025 the dispute between petitioner and respondent No.5 and the suit being filed against each other, licence was renewed. Thereafter the petitioner made an application for shifting of business to another premises to another location in the very same town. He made application to the respondent No.3 authority for permission to grant shifting of business to another location. The premises was shifted to another location by respondent No.5 and the respondent No.3, insisted to consider the application in accordance to Rule 23 of the Karnataka Excise Licenses (General Conditions) Rule 1967, had not considered the application on the ground that if both the brothers together file the application, the same will be considered in accordance with law. This being the state of affairs, respondent No.4 issued endorsement which is questioned before this Court by the petitioner. Respondent No.4 by the impugned order had rejected the permission for shifting of the premises of the business on the ground that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8869 WP No. 103936 of 2025 if together both petitioner and respondent No.5 approach the Authority, they will consider the application. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the endorsement passed by respondent No.4 is illegal, without authority of law, and the same requires to be quashed as the Inspector of Excise has no authority to pass such an endorsement. 4. Learned senior counsel relies upon the provisions of Rule 23 of the Rule 1967 in support of his case and contends that respondent No.4 has no authority to issue any endorsement which is in the guise of an order, thereby the permission sought for by the petitioner has not been considered in accordance with the Rule by the respondent No.3 which is the competent authority to examine and consider the application. Hence the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP representing the respondent authority sustains the impugned endorsement and contends that the order passed on the petitioners’s - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8869 WP No. 103936 of 2025 application for shifting of premises is justified and the endorsement merely states that the application will be considered if both brothers file a joint application, the same shall be considered, if not, the petition cannot be entertained. This Court does not find any requirement of notice to respondent No.5 as no order is passed adverse to the interest of respondent No.5. 6. I have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. 7. Apparently, it is seen that there is some dispute between the brothers, petitioner and the respondent No.5. The suit is filed for permanent injunction by the petitioner as well as respondent No.5. It is also seen that as per Rule 23, the competent authority for granting permission for shifting of location of the shop, is the Deputy Commissioner, which is not in dispute. The order is passed by the respondent No.4, the Excise Inspector in the guise of an endorsement. The endorsement however is nothing but not accepting the application for shifting of shop - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8869 WP No. 103936 of 2025 premises to another location which is sought for by the petitioner. This provision clearly stipulates that particular job done by particular authority does not lie on the Deputy Commissioner to delegate respondent No.4 take up responsibility of competent authority i.e., respondent No.3. Under the circumstances, I am in agreement with the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the impugned endorsement is liable to be set aside and respondent No.3 to pass orders on the application filed by the petitioner for shifting of the shop premises to another location in accordance to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Under the circumstances, I pass the following: ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. The endorsement dated 31.05.2025 issued by respondent No.4-the Excise Inspector is hereby quashed. iii. Writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent No.3 to consider the application - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8869 WP No. 103936 of 2025 of the petitioner afresh in accordance to the Act and the Rules and pass suitable orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. iv. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the rights, either of the petitioner or respondent No.5. He shall deal with the matter independently in accordance with law. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE KGK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2