- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31730 WP No. 3243 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 3243 OF 2022 (EXCISE) BETWEEN: 1. SRI H.SUDHEER SHETTY, S/O LATE RAMANNA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT VALAMOGARU VILLAGE, KAIKARA POST, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 210. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, SOMASARAPETE SUB DIVISION, SOMAWARAPETE, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 231. …PETITIONERS [BY SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY G V., ADVOCATE (PH)] AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, KODAGU DISTRICT, MADIKERI, KODAGU - 571 201. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, SOMAWARAPETE SUB DIVISION, SOMAWARPETE, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 231. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, KODAGU DISTRICT, MADIKERI, KODAGU - 571 201. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31730 WP No. 3243 of 2022 5. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, SOMWARPETE ZONE, SOMAWARPETE, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 231. 6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KODAGU DISTRICT, KODAGU - 571 201. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI JAYALINGAYYA MADENOORMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R6 (PH)] THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE/INTIMATION LETTER DATED 07.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE R5 AT ANNEXURE-F, TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC AUCTION BIDDER OF ARRACK VIDE ORDER DATED 12.06.1986. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed for following reliefs: i) Issue writ of certiorari or similar writ order or direction to quash impugned notice/intimation letter dated 0710.2021 issued by 5th respondent in EXE/SOMPETZONE/HA-PA/01/14-15 at Annexure-F. ii) To direct respondents to close public auction bidder of arrack vide order no.128/EDC86 dated 12.06.1986 etc. 2. Sri Narasimha Murthy GV, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner was highest bidder at public auction conducted on 12.06.1986 for arrack licence in respect - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31730 WP No. 3243 of 2022 of Somawarpet Taluk for Excise year 1986-87 at rental of Rs.6,77,000/-. It was submitted, due to scarcity of arrack, petitioner was not able to do business and suffered loss. It was alleged that Government did not arrange for supply of satisfactory quantity of arrack to petitioner's wine shop. Therefore, petitioner submitted representation to respondent no.2 as per Annexure-A. It was submitted, respondent no.2 had issued intimation enumerating certain amounts to be refunded vide Annexure-B, to which petitioner requested for adjustment against rental for subsequent months as per Annexure-C. 3. It was submitted, without consideration of same, petitioner was informed that he was due to a sum of Rs.15,24,800/- and which attracted interest of Rs.92,80,487/- upto 31.03.2021 vide Annexure-F and petitioner was called upon to pay same. It was submitted same was issued without making adjustments as sought. It was also submitted, circumstances that had led petitioner suffering loss were also not considered. Moreover, issuance of demand after lapse of decades was illegal and sought for quashing same. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31730 WP No. 3243 of 2022 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents has filed a memo producing copy of Government order dated 12.06.1986. 5. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record. 6. From above, it would appear that petitioner being highest bidder for arrack licence in Somawarpet Taluk for year 1986-87, is not in dispute. That petitioner operated Sannad, but failed to pay rentals and was in arrears of rental for said period is also not seriously disputed. Petitioner claims that respondents had issued demand without taking note of dues from department to petitioner, provided adjustment and took note of circumstances that had led to petitioner suffering loss. 7. While contentions urged seeking for closure of recovery proceedings by taking note of circumstances under which petitioner had sustained loss would not be tenable, as issuance of licence was contractual in nature and petitioner would be bound to pay rental amount as bid by him. Petitioner's contentions about failure to provide adjustment of amount due from department to him while issuing demand - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31730 WP No. 3243 of 2022 would however require consideration. Impugned notice at Annexure-G discloses sum total of demand without details to verify whether amount stated to be due was intimated to petitioner as per Annexure-B has already been adjusted or otherwise. In view of above and to said extent, petitioner would be entitled for indulgence. 7. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer memo filed by learned Additional Government Advocate appending copy of Government order dated 12.06.1986 under which arrack supply contract was confirmed in favour of petitioner. Strangely same is of no relevance to petitioner's contract and as such would be of no assistance. It would have been appropriate for respondents to have filed detailed statement or issued reply to petitioner disclosing whether adjustment was granted or otherwise, taking note of fact that writ petition has been pending for three years. Effort by learned Additional Government Advocate is futile. In view of above, writ petition is disposed of directing respondents to re-issue fresh demand along with details of claims to respondent/department, by petitioner specifically stating whether amount mentioned in Annexure-B are adjusted - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31730 WP No. 3243 of 2022 or otherwise and whether there were any mitigating circumstances substantiating claim for reduction of demand. Said exercise shall be done within a period of four months from date of receipt of certified copy of this order and thereafter if any recoveries against petitioner still subsists, respondents would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg*:List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32