- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47226 WP No. 22744 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 22744 OF 2025 (EXCISE-) BETWEEN: SMT. VIDYABAI, W/O MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, NO.13-17, KANDASWAMY MODALIYAR ROAD, JAYAMAHAL, RICHARDS TOWN, BENGALURU 560 005. SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT OF NOT CLAIMED …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAN MAHABALESHWARA BHAT., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE EXCISE, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU -560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, IN KARNATAKA, TTMC, 2ND BLOCK, BMTC COMPLEX, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU -560 027. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KANDAYABHAVAN, K G ROAD, BENGALURU -560 001. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47226 WP No. 22744 of 2025 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, (BUD-5) NO.542, 1ST FLOOR,16TH CROSS, HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGARA, BENGALURU 560 038. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJ KUMAR.M., AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR RENEWAL OF THE CL-9 LICENSE OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE EXCISE YEAR 2005-26 BY VALIDATING THE LICENSE FROM THE YEAR 1998-1999 TO 2024-2025 IN TERMS OF RULE 5-A OF THE IMFL RULES AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the application dated 16.10.2025 (annexure-J) for renewal of the CL-9 license for the Excise year 2025-26 by validating the license from 1998-1999 to 2024-25 in terms - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47226 WP No. 22744 of 2025 of Rule 5-A of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor) Rule, 1968 (for short 'Rules'). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. Brief facts of the case for the purpose of deciding this petition are that, the petitioner was CL-9 licensee operating a bar and restaurant at No.30, Tannery Road, Bengaluru, under license dated 29.06.1999. Renewal of the license for the Excise Year 1998-1999 was refused on the ground of alleged involvement of the petitioner's husband in a bogus permit criminal case, in Appeal No.147/1999. In the said appeal, the Appellate Tribunal directed the petitioner to file an application for grant of license for the Excise year 1999-2000 by directing the authorities to consider the same. Subsequently, application for renewal of the license for the year 2000-2001 was rejected for various reasons on 29.11.2000. Being aggrieved by the said order, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47226 WP No. 22744 of 2025 petitioner preferred an appeal in Appeal No.115/2001 before the Tribunal, which was remanded for fresh consideration by respondent No.2. The petitioner again applied for renewal of license for the year 2001-2002. Meanwhile, another criminal case was initiated against her husband relating to the same allegation, which eventually ended in acquittal. 4. On basis of the acquittal and claiming continuity, the petitioner sought validation of license for the year 1998-1999 to 2024-2025 and renewal for the Excise year 2025-26 under Rule 5-A of the Rules. By an order dated 16.10.2025, respondent No.3 called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,78,89,975/- towards renewal fee. The petitioner has approached this Court in this writ petition seeking consideration of her application and challenging the said demand. During this proceedings, she sought time to pay and filed an affidavit on 25.10.2025, but did not comply with the same. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47226 WP No. 22744 of 2025 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that refusal of renewal of the license in earlier years was solely on a bogus permit case involving her husband, which has now ended in acquittal. Learned counsel further submits that, to pay the amount of Rs.1,78,89,975/-, the petitioner requires reasonable time to remit the amount. It is submitted that renewal could be considered only after payment of the renewal fee and compliance with statutory formalities. 6. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the respondent submits that, despite indulgence by this Court and filing an affidavit on 25.10.2025 seeking time, she has not complied with the requirement of payment and thus, the petitioner is therefore, not entitled to any further extension of time. 7. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions urged and perused the materials on record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47226 WP No. 22744 of 2025 8. It is also evident that the respondents by their order dated 16.10.2025 have quantified the renewal fee payable by the petitioner. The petitioner has expressed her readiness to comply renewal fee demanded, but has sought reasonable time. Although, the petitioner failed to utilise the earlier time granted by this Court, the material indicates that the petitioner has not abandoned her claim and continues to express willingness to meet the statutory liability. When the authority has quantified the dues and the petitioner seeks to regularise the license by fulfilling those conditions, a limited indulgence may be granted to ensure that the application is adjudicated on merits rather than being defeated solely on account of lapse of time. Therefore, in the interest of justice and to ensure that the petitioner's application is examined in accordance with Rule 5-A of the Rules, a final and strictly time bound opportunity deserves to be extended to the petitioner to remit the renewal fee demanded. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47226 WP No. 22744 of 2025 ORDER i) The writ petition is disposed of. ii) The petitioner is granted a time of fifteen(15) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order to remit the renewal fee of Rs.1,78,89,975/- as demanded by the respondent in the order dated 16.10.2025. iii) Upon such remittance, the respondent- authority shall consider the petitioner's application dated 16.10.2025 for renewal of CL-9 license for the year 2025-26 strictly in accordance with Rule 5-A of the Rules and in accordance with law. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8