- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50048 WP No. 21272 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.21272 OF 2025 (EXCISE) BETWEEN: P.S. SUBBA REDDY S/O SHVIARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT PATHAKOTE, PATHAPALYA POST, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKBALLAPURA DISTRICT-561 212. …PETITIONER (BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKBALLAPURA DISTRICT, CHIKBALLAPURA-561 212. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, CHIKBALLAPURA DISTRICT, CHIKBALLAPURA-561 212. 3. EXCISE COMMISSIONER IN KARNATAKA, 2ND FLOOR, TTMC ‘A’ BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAJ KUMAR M., AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OR Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50048 WP No. 21272 of 2025 DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 08/08/2024 PASSED BY THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER IN KARNATAKA (3RD RESPONDENT) IN APPEAL NO.ECS/63/APP/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The question that falls for consideration before this Court is, whether the petitioner has made out any ground to interfere with the cancellation order dated 03.12.1999 and the order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the Excise Commissioner (respondent No.3) and consequently, whether the petitioner is entitled to seek renewal of the CL-2 licence after a delay of 24 years? 2. Heard Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned senior counsel for Sri B.L. Sanjeev, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Raj Kumar .M, learned AGA for the respondents. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the very foundation of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50048 WP No. 21272 of 2025 impugned action dated 03.12.1999, is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the order of cancellation has not been passed by the competent authority contemplated under Section 29 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (‘the Act’ for short). It is contended that the power under Section 29 is vested exclusively with the Deputy Commissioner of the District, whereas the impugned order, as also the earlier suspension order including Annexure-G, were issued and signed by another officer ‘for the Deputy Commissioner of Excise’, who had no authority in law to exercise such powers. Hence, the proceedings questioning the cancellation of the license are a nullity and, once the very order is non-est in law, the question of delay does not arise. It is further contended that the appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without examining the jurisdictional defect. According to the learned senior counsel, even assuming some lapse on the part of the petitioner, the proper course for the authorities was to regulazise the renewal by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50048 WP No. 21272 of 2025 imposing penalty rather than proceeding to cancel the licence. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned action of cancellation suffers from illegality. 4. Per contra, learned AGA for the respondent would submit that the writ petition is wholly misconceived and liable to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay of more than two decades. It is contended that the order of cancellation dated 03.12.1999 was passed by the competent Deputy Commissioner of District, after issuance of multiple show-cause notices, and after granting sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, who failed to offer any explanation or reply at the relevant point of time. It is admitted that the notice and the order were issued by the Deputy Commissioner of District (Revenue), who is a licensing authority under the Act, and that the petitioner’s attempt to rely upon the signatures appearing ‘for the Deputy Commissioner’ is totally without any basis. It is submitted that the appellate authority has rightly refused to entertain the appeal in the year 2024 after an - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50048 WP No. 21272 of 2025 unexplained delay of 24 years and no case is made out for directing renewal. 5. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was granted a Form CL-2 retail liquor licence on 29.06.1999 for carrying on the business in Bagepalli range, alleging breach of licence condition, a show-cause notices were issued and thereafter, by an order dated 03.12.1999, the Deputy Commissioner cancelled the petitioner's licence. The petitioner did not challenge the said cancellation for over two decades. In the year 2020, the petitioner filed W.P. No.10290/2020 seeking renewal of the licence, which was dismissed with an observation that renewal could not be considered since the cancellation order dated 03.12.1999 was not set aside. It is only thereafter in the year 2024, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 61 (2) of the Act challenging the 1999 cancellation order, which came to be rejected by the Excise Commissioner on the ground of inordinate delay. This Court in W.P. No.10290/2020 has observed as follows: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50048 WP No. 21272 of 2025 “In the light of these facts and circumstances, petitioner has sought for the aforesaid reliefs. Petitioner is not entitled to renewal of Form CL-2 license issued in favour of petitioner unless and until cancellation of license dated 03.12.1999 is held to be bad. In the absence of modifying/withdrawing/cancellation of license, petitioner is not entitled to relief for renewal of Form CL-2 for the year 2020-2021, since Form CL- 2 license in favour of the petitioner is not existing in eye of law. In view of the fact that the license was cancelled on 03.12.1999, petitioner has not made out case. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed.” 6. This earlier observation of this Court cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed as furnishing a ground for seeking condonation of an inordinate delay of 24 years in challenging the order dated 03.12.1999 before the Appellate Authority. On the contrary, the said observation made it abundantly clear that unless the petitioner took timely steps to challenge the cancellation order, no consequential relief could be granted. The - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50048 WP No. 21272 of 2025 petitioner, having failed to do so for more than two decades, has shown no justification whatsoever for condoning such an extraordinary delay. 7. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that the order dated 03.12.1999 is void, for want of jurisdiction is concerned, the material on record discloses that the show-cause notices were issued by the Deputy Commissioner of the District, who is the statutory licensing authority empowered to take action under Section 29 of the Act. The mere fact that Annexure-G and the other proceedings bear an endorsement ‘for Deputy Commissioner’ does not by itself establish that the order was issued by an incompetent authority. 8. It is well settled that the administrative orders authenticated and signed on behalf of the competent authority do not become invalid merely because the signature is affixed by a subordinate officer in terms of an internal authorization. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50048 WP No. 21272 of 2025 9. More importantly, the petitioner did not dispute at that relevant point of time when the notices were issued or when the cancellation order was passed in 1999. For over 24 years, the petitioner neither sought clarification nor questioned the alleged lack of jurisdiction. Even in W.P. No.10290/2020, though the petitioner had an opportunity to challenge the cancellation order, no jurisdictional objection was pressed or recorded. Thus, the plea now raised is an afterthought and cannot be entertained at this belated stage. 10. The record further indicates that the cancellation was issued in the name and authority of the Deputy Commissioner of District and no material is placed to demonstrate that the order, was in fact, passed by an officer lacking statutory power and the petitioner’s contention that the cancellation order is non est in law for want of jurisdiction, is therefore devoid of merit and is rejected. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50048 WP No. 21272 of 2025 11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further contended that no rule existed in 1999 requiring the petitioner to indent or lift the prescribed quantity of liquor. As regards the petitioner's contention that no lifting requirement existed in law in 1999, this Court finds no merit in the said plea. The cancellation order was not founded on Rule 14 (2) of the 2003 Amendment Rules, but on the petitioner's breach of licence conditions in force at the relevant point of time, including the failure to indent the prescribed quantity of liquor and the failure to operate the shop during the notified hours. The action taken by the Competent Authority was based on the breach of licence conditions, which independently constitutes a valid ground for cancellation. The petitioner has failed to establish that the cancellation was based on a non- existent rule or authority proceeded on an erroneous understanding. Hence, the contention that the cancellation is vitiated for want of lifting requirement in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50048 WP No. 21272 of 2025 the statute at a relevant time is wholly untenable. For all the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 80