Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 80407 (KAR)

SRI B S GOWDA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/15947/2025 · 2025-09-08

Ravi V Hosmani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35215 WP No. 15947 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 15947 OF 2025 (EXCISE) BETWEEN: SRI B.S. GOWDA, SOCIAL ACTIVIST, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.24, 1ST FLOOR, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 5TH BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 090. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SHWETHA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI KRISHNA MURTHY N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 002. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, NO.334/6, 1ST FLOOR, KSBCL COMPLEX, BYATARAYANPURA, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 026. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35215 WP No. 15947 of 2025 4. THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, TTMC BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR, NGO COLONY, WILSON GARDEN, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. 5. SRI. C.J. GOPAL, SIMADRI BOARDING AND LODGING, SITE NO.42 AND 43, ASSESSMENT NO. 15/1 A6, DOMBARAHALLI VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 562 162. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA, AGA FOR R1, R3 & R4; SMT. SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI AKASH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRITHVEESH M.K., ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO ISSUE ANY LICENSE FOR SALE OF LIQUOR IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT NO.5 OR ANY OTHER PARTY IN RESPECT OF THE PREMISES SITUATED WITHIN 100 METERS FROM THE BOUNDARY OF THE RECOGNIZED SCHOOL, AS PER THE KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT, 1965 AND KARNATAKA EXCISE (GENERAL CONDITIONS OF LICENSES) RULES, 1967, AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B- GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35215 WP No. 15947 of 2025 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs: "a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate wirt, order or direction, directing the Respondents not to issue any license for sale of liquor in favour of Respondent No.5 or any other party in respect of the premises situated within 100 meters from the boundary of the recognized school, as per the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and Karnataka Excise (General Conditions of Licenses) Rules, 1967; b) Declare that the action of the Respondents in proceeding to grant license in favour of Respondent No.5 for liquor vending within 100 meters of the school is illegal, arbitrary, violative of statutory provisions, and null and void; c) Direct the Respondents to strictly enforce the distance norms as prescribed under the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and the Karnataka Excise (General Conditions of Licenses) Rules, 1967 while considering applications for grant of liquor licenses in the area concerned; and etc." 2. Smt.Shweta M Patil, learned counsel appearing for Sri N Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for petitioner seeks adjournment. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35215 WP No. 15947 of 2025 3. Sri Akash Patil, learned counsel appearing for Sri Prithvish M.K., learned counsel for respondent no.5 would however submit that petitioner was claiming to be a social activist, opposing grant of CL-7 license to respondent no.5 on ground that same was within prohibitory distance from a school. It was submitted, in course of consideration of application filed by respondent no.5, respondent no.3 had rejected application. Thereby rendering this writ petition infructuous. 4. Learned AGA would second submission. 5. In view of above, there would be no useful purpose in granting time. Recording submission of learned counsel for respondent no.5 and learned AGA that application for grant of CL-7 license filed by respondent no.5 has been rejected and cause of action for petitioner to file this writ petition would be rendered infructuous. Writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53