- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8869 WP No. 103932 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 103932 OF 2025 (EXCISE) BETWEEN: KARTHIK RESIDENCY REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, CL-7 LICENSEE, NO.223(A), SY NO.326, ASSESSMENT NO.27, WARD NO.13, MAIN ROAD, SUNDUR TOWN-583199, BELLARY DISTRICT. BY ITS PARTNER PRAHLLAD S/O. KRISHNAPPA D., AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT SANDUR, BELLARY DISTRICT-583119. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.K.BHAT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. SUDHA D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER IN KARNATAKA 2ND FLOOR, TTMC, ‘A’ BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELLARY DISTRICT, BELLARY-583101. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE BELLARY DISTRICT, BELLARY-583101. VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8869 WP No. 103932 of 2025 5. SHILPA PATIL W/O. LATE D.RAGHAVENDRA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT. HOUSE NO.68, 2ND WARD, NEAR MARIYAMMA TEMPLE, SANDUR-583119, BELLARY DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO RENEW THE LICENSE IN FORM CL-7 DATED 09.10.2024 BEARING REGISTERED NO. 0202040027 FOR THE EXCISE YEAR 2024-25 AS PER ANNEXURE C BY ACCEPTING THE SIGNATURE OF THE PETITIONER ON THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL FOR THE YEAR 2025-26 AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) 1. Heard learned senior counsel Sri.G.K.Bhat on behalf the learned counsel Smt.Sudha D. for the petitioner. Learned HCGP accepts notice for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. Notice to respondent No.5 is dispensed as this Court is not inclined to pass any adverse orders against - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8869 WP No. 103932 of 2025 the respondent No.5, except for disposal of this petition to direct the respondents-Authorities to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law, for the following reasons. 3. The petitioner claims to be a registered partnership firm constituted for the purpose of engaging into Hotel and Boarding House at Sandur. The petitioner and the respondent No.5 are the registered partners in the partnership firm. The petitioner filed an application for renewal of its license before the Authority –respondent No.4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that responded No.4-Deputy Commissioner of Excise has been insisting for the physical presence of respondent No.5 and the other partners to sign the application before him, which has become difficult for the petitioner to secure the presence of respondent No.5. Moreover the reason that she is a lady. 4. It is also contended by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that there is a family partition. Apart - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8869 WP No. 103932 of 2025 from continuing the respondent No.5 in the partnership firm, separate liquor shop on the strength of Form CL-2 Licence working in Tara Nagar in Sandur taluk has been given to the share of the respondent No.5. In spite of the same, she has been obstructing the smooth running of CL- 7 Licence and obstructing the renewal process, which is sought by the petitioner. Hence the petitioner is before this Court for non-consideration of renewal of licence by the respondent No.4. 5. Learned HCGP representing the State sustains the action of the respondent No.4 by insisting upon the respondent No.5 to accompany or sign the application and come before the Authority for renewal of the license as she is also one of the partners in the partnership firm and he contends that the petition does not call for any interference and the same may be dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8869 WP No. 103932 of 2025 7. It is not in dispute that there is a registered partnership firm and petitioner, as well as respondent No.5 is partners. Renewal of license was sought for by the petitioner alone, making several allegations against the respondent No.5, so also contending that there is a bifurcation in the family partition and one of the properties is given to respondent No.5. All these aspects cannot be gone into by this Court as it amounts to disputed questions of fact. The application filed by the petitioner for renewal would have to be considered by the respondent No.4 in accordance to the law. If the petitioner has produced any documents showing partition between the parties or separation from respondent No.5 with regard to CL-7 licence, such documents shall be taken into consideration and considered order shall be passed in accordance with law. Accordingly I pass the following: ORDER i. Petition is allowed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8869 WP No. 103932 of 2025 ii. Writ of mandamus is issued directing respondent No.4 to consider the application for renewal in accordance with law. iii. The petitioner is permitted to produce all such documents to show that the respondent No.5 is no more in the partnership and that her presence may not be required for the renewal. iv. The said exercise shall be completed by the respondent No.4 expeditiously, on production, by the petitioner, any such documents, in accordance with law. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE KGK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2