- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31369 WP No. 23723 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 23723 OF 2025 (EXCISE) BETWEEN: SRI RAVI, S/O KULLE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, CL-9 LICENSEE GANDHARVA BAR AND RESTAURANT, SY NO 59, FLAT NO 21, INDUSTRIAL AREA, KUDULUR VILLAGE, KUSHAL NAGAR TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI B.N. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. KARNATAKA STATE SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, 1ST STAGE YADAVGIRI MYSORE 570 020, REP BY ITS ASS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE O/O DY COMMISSIONER EXCISE, MADIKERE TOWN KODAGU DT 571201 THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE O/O COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, 2ND FLOOR TTMC A BLOCK BMTC COMPLEX SHANTHI NAGAR, Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31369 WP No. 23723 of 2025 BENGALURU 560027. 3. DY. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE O/O DY. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE MADIKERE TOWN, KODAGU DT - 571 201. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE O/O COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE 2ND FLOOR, TTMC 'A' BLOCK BMTC COMPLEX, SHANTHI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, AGA FOR R.1, R3 & R4; SMT. SHRUTHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.A.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI MOHAN BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT IN I.A.NO.1/2025) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.SC008/2024-25/00087 DATED 25.07.2025 PASSED BY THE R3 DC OF EXCISE AS PER ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging order bearing no.SC008/2024-25/00087 dated 25.07.2025 passed by respondent no.3 as per Annexure - A, this writ petition is filed. 2. Sri B.N.Shetty, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner was holder of CL-9 licence and running - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31369 WP No. 23723 of 2025 Bar and Restaurant under name and style of 'Gandharva Bar and Restaurant' originally at Sy.no.32/4, Shirangala village, Kushalnagar. He had filed application for shifting. Considering same, respondent no.3 passed order at Annexure-B dated 27.06.2025 permitting shifting to premises at land bearing Sy.no.59 property no.15180020810600713, plot no.P-21, Industrial Area, Kudluru village, Kushalnagar. Subsequently on 04.07.2025, his licence was renewed for period of 5 years i.e., upto 30.06.2030. It was submitted, when petitioner had completed shifting and was operating licence, on 18.07.2025, he was issued with show cause notice by respondent no.3 for cancellation of order of shifting on ground that respondent no.2 herein by letter objected against shifting on ground that plot no.P-21 in Industrial area, Kushalnagar, was allotted for vehicle body building and poultry feed and running of Bar and Restaurant in said premises would be contrary to purposes of allotment. 3. It was submitted, though notice was issued on 18.07.2025, petitioner was permitted only one day's time to show cause. It was submitted, notice was in fact served on petitioner on 19.07.2025 and petitioner responded to same as - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31369 WP No. 23723 of 2025 per Annexure-G on 23.07.2025. However, impugned order at Annexure-A came to be passed without appropriate consideration and in violation of principles of natural justice. Insofar objection against operating CL-9 licence in industrial area, this Court in W.P.no.38772/2016 and connected matters decided on 22.08.2017, had observed in absence of any statutory provisions prohibiting such user, Industrial Area Authorities were not justified in prohibiting such user. It was submitted, said ratio would squarely apply to petitioner's case and submitted that there was no proper basis for respondent no.3 to issue notice or to have passed order at Annexure-A. 4. On other hand, learned AGA, referring to statement of objections, opposed writ petition. It was submitted, petitioner was granted permission for shifting as per Annexure- K, with condition that in case of objection, it was liable to be revoked and as respondent no.2 had raised objections against shifting of Bar and Restaurant as per notice at Annexure-F issued to petitioner's landlord, respondent no.3 had issued show-cause notice as per Annexure-F and thereafter, passed order at Annexure-A. Therefore, impugned order was justified. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31369 WP No. 23723 of 2025 5. Sri Mohan Bhat, learned counsel for impleading applicant in I.A.no.1/2025 also opposed writ petition. 6. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition records. 7. From above, it is seen that main ground of challenge to Annexure-A is violation of principles of natural justice insofar as failure to provide adequate opportunity to petitioner to respond before passing of impugned order. It is also challenged on ground that there would be no prohibition against running of Bar and Restaurant in industrial area as observed by this Court in its decision at Annexure-E. 8. Perusal of show-cause notice issued at Annexure-F would indicate that it was issued on 18.07.2025 and response was expected within one day i.e., 19.07.2025. Perusal of order at Annexure-B would indicate that respondent-Excise authorities had followed due procedure before permitting shifting. Indeed it would be open for them to cancel same in case petitioner/applicant had obtained order fraudulently or on basis of incorrect or false information. But no such allegations are made against petitioner. In any case, applicant or - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31369 WP No. 23723 of 2025 beneficiary of order would need to be granted adequate opportunity to show cause before passing any order of cancellation or withdrawal. As sufficient opportunity is not provided, on said ground alone impugned order at Annexure-A would require to be quashed. Consequently, as respondent no.3 would require to reconsider matter on merits, contentions of respective parties on merits are not examined herein but left open to be addressed by authority. 9. In view of above, following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed; (ii) Impugned order bearing no.SC008/2024-25/00087 dated 25.07.2025 passed by respondent no.3 at Annexure-A is quashed; (iii) Reply submitted by petitioner at Annexure-G is required to be treated as response to show-cause notice at Annexure-F and petitioner is permitted - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31369 WP No. 23723 of 2025 to submit additional reply, if any, within 15 days from today; (iv) Respondent no.3 is directed to consider petitioner's reply and pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law, by passing reasoned order within four weeks. (v) Since application for impleading is pending, instead of considering same, liberty is reserved to applicant to approach respondent no.3, in accordance with law. I.A.no.1/2025 is disposed as unnecessary. Respondent no.3 to pass orders after securing information from respondent no.2. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18