- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31681 WP No. 20137 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. 20137 OF 2022 (EXCISE) BETWEEN: B.V.M. ENTERPRISES A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND A LICENSEE IN FORM CL-2 NO.17985, SY NO.11/P9, V P KHATA NO.81, KEMPAPURA VILLAGE GHATAMAADAMANGALA PANCHAYATH KYASAMBALLI HOBLI, KGF TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563122 BY PARTNER SMT K JALAJA W/O LATE B V MUNIRATHNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS REGISTED IN PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN PARNTERSHIP ACT 1932 …PETITIONER (BY SRI SUDHA D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER IN KARNATAKA 2ND FLOOR, TTMC A BLOCK BMTC BUILDING SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560027. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-517247. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-517247 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R3 TO ALLOW Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31681 WP No. 20137 of 2022 THE PETITIONER TO UNINTERRUPTEDLY CARRY ON THE BUSINESS IN TERMS OF THE LICENSE IN FORM CL-2 BEARING NO.ES202206301111 VALID UPTO 30.06.2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-A. 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 Writ petition is filed seeking for Writ of Mandamus directing respondent no.3 to allow petitioner uninterruptedly to carry on business in terms of Form CL-2 licence bearing no.ES202206301111 valid up to 30.06.2023 (Annexure-A). 2. Smt.Sudha D, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner was a registered partnership firm consisting of three partners namely, Smt.K Jalaja, Smt.K Gunavathi and Sri BV Munirathnam with 60%, 25% and 15% shares respectively. Said firm was holding licence in Form-2 bearing no.ES202206301111 issued for premises bearing no.17985 at Sy.no.11/9, V.P. Khata no.81, Kempapura village, Ghatamaadangala Panchayat, Kysasamballi Hobli, KGF Taluk. It was submitted, on 6.08.2022 said Munirathnam died leaving behind his wife -Jalaja and two children namely, M Sarvika and M Likesh. It was further submitted, before marrying petitioner, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31681 WP No. 20137 of 2022 deceased Munirathnam had married one Smt. Rathnamma and had four children with her. It was submitted under family settlement deed dated 26.11.2014 (Annexure-D) Smt.Rathnamma was permitted to continue CL-7 licence held by said Munirathnam in his individual name. Therefore Jalaja and her children were entitled for substitution in CL-2 licence issued to firm, had filed application. However respondent authorities at instance of Rathnamma prevented firm from carrying on business. 3. It was submitted only reason on for respondents opposing inclusion of name of Smt.Jalaja and her children in licence was requirement of payment of transfer for under Rule 17-B of Karnataka Excise (General Conditions of Licence) Rules 1967, ('Rules' for short), though appropriate provision namely Rule 17-A thereof would not insist on same. It was submitted that this Court on 20.10.2022 had granted interim order directing respondent no.3 to allow firm to continue business based on CL-2 licence subject to result of writ petition. It was submitted firm was operating licence and had also obtained renewal current as on today. On above ground sought for allowing writ petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31681 WP No. 20137 of 2022 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate opposed writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record. 6. From above petitioners grievance against respondents appears to be refusal to include names of legal heirs of one of partners of petitioner-firm on his death. Issuance of CL-2 licence to petitioner firm with partners viz., Smt.K Jalaja, Smt.K Gunavathi and Sri BV Munirathnam is not in dispute. Death of one of partners namely B.V.Muninrathnam on 06.08.2022 as indicated in death certificate produced along with writ petition is also not in dispute. Though, petitioner claims to have approached respondents with request for inclusion of name, there is no material produced to indicate that any application/representation was filed or to establish its rejection or refusal. To invoke Rule 17A, an application would require to be filed. 7. In view of above, writ petition and prayer made in present form would not be tenable. But, as petitioner has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31681 WP No. 20137 of 2022 enjoyed benefit of interim order dated 20.10.2022, it would be appropriate to dispose of writ petition by permitting petitioner to file application with respondents under Rule-17A of Rules for inclusion of name of legal heirs of deceased partner. In case same is filed within a period of two weeks from today, application, respondents to process same and pass appropriate orders thereon keeping in mind provision of Rule 17A of Rules, within two weeks thereafter. Needless to state that respondent would be required to forthwith inform result of such consideration. Until then interim order dated 20.10.2022 would enure to petitioner. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE PSG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39