- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52841 WP No. 29463 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.29463 OF 2025 (EXCISE) BETWEEN: AJANTHKUMAR S.R. AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O LATE R.R. SEETHARAMAPPA, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O HIG-10, VINOBANAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA-577201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI G.K. BHAT, SENIOR COUSNEL FOR SMT. SUDHA D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA FINANCE DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-01. 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER IN KARNATAKA, 2ND FLOOR, TTMC ‘A’ BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA-577201. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXERCISE, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA-5772014. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAJ KUMAR M., AGA) Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52841 WP No. 29463 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO RENEW THE LICENSE IN FORM CL-2 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER BY COLLECTING THE PRESCRIBED FEES AND AS PER THE REPRESENTATION / APPLICATION 13.03.2025 AND 26.08.2025 RESPECTIVELY OF THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-J AND L. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, 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 to respondent No.4 to renew the lapsed CL-2 licence pertaining to the Excise Year 2003-2004, contending that all excise dues have been settled under the Karasamadhana Scheme and that refusal to consider renewal is solely based on administrative instructions, notwithstanding the statutory provisions permitting renewal of a lapsed licence. Brief facts: 2. The petitioner was a registered Excise contractor holding a CL-2 licence for the Excise Year 2003- 2004. The licence came to be discontinued on account of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52841 WP No. 29463 of 2025 disputes relating furnishing of bank guarantee and alleged arrears. The State Government introduced Karasamadhana Scheme from time to time, granting waiver of interest upon payment of principal excise duties. The petitioner availed the benefit of Karasamadhana Scheme - V pursuant to the orders passed by this Court and cleared the dues as demanded by the department. 3. After settlement of excise liability, the petitioner submitted representations dated 13.03.2025 seeking renewal of lapsed CL-2 licence by paying the prescribed fee in terms of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968 (‘Rules, 1968’ for short). 4. The contention of the petitioner is that in W.P. No.17461/2025, this Court directed consideration of the petitioner's representation, however, respondent No.4 declined to consider the request by issuing an endorsement dated 18.08.2025, relying upon administrative instruction issued by respondent No.2, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52841 WP No. 29463 of 2025 directing officers not to receive a process applications for renewal of certain lapsed licenses. Aggrieved by the said endorsement and non-consideration of his application, the petitioner has filed this present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the excise dues stood settled under the Karasamadhana Scheme, there is no statutory disqualification under Rule 4-B of the Rules, 1968. Rule 5- A of the Rules, 1968 expressly permits renewal of lapsed licences and respondent No.4 is a competent authority to consider such application. It is further submitted that administrative instructions cannot override statutory rules nor can they nullify judicial directions issued by this Court. It is submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary, contrary to Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution and issued without independent application of mind. 6. Learned AGA for the State contends that the petitioner is not entitled for automatic renewal and that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52841 WP No. 29463 of 2025 earlier schemes had specific cut-off dates. It is urged that respondent No.4 acted strictly in compliance with the instructions issued by the Excise Commissioner, directing officers not to entertain renewal applications for licences until further orders. The respondents submit that the endorsement was issued as a part of administrative discipline and does not suffer from illegality. 7. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether respondent No.4 was justified in declining to consider the petitioner's application for renewal of lapsed CL-2 licence solely on basis of administrative instructions, notwithstanding the statutory provisions and earlier directions issued by this Court?” 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has cleared the excise dues as demanded under the Karasamadhana Scheme pursuant to the judicial orders. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52841 WP No. 29463 of 2025 Rule 5-A of the Rules, 1968 empowers the competent authority to consider renewal of a lapsed license, subject to payment of prescribed fee and satisfaction of statutory requirements. Respondent No.4 is the statutory authority vested with jurisdiction to examine the petitioner's request. Reliance only on administrative instructions, without examining the application and merits cannot substitute the exercise of statutory discretion. At the same time, this Court refrains from issuing a positive mandamus to renew the licence, as the renewal is not automatic and must be decided strictly in accordance with law. The ends of justice would be met by directing respondent No.4 to consider the petitioner's application independently, uninfluenced by the impugned endorsement, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed-in-part. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52841 WP No. 29463 of 2025 ii. Respondent No.4 is directed to consider the petitioner's application for renewal of licence in CL-2 in accordance with Rules ,1968, subject to the petitioner having paid the prescribed fee, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after due application of mind, without being influenced by the endorsement dated 18.08.2025, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iii. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim for renewal and all contentions of both parties are kept open. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34