- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18367 WP No. 105636 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.105636 OF 2025 (EXCISE) BETWEEN: SATHWIK MANTHAGOND S/O MALLIKARJUN MANTHAGOND, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OPP. NEELAKANTHESHWAR TEMPLE, GANGAWATI, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583 227. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.K. BHAT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. V.G. SUNILKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER IN KARNATAKA, 2ND FLOOR, TTMC, 'A' BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18367 WP No. 105636 of 2025 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL-583 231. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, GANGAVATHI RANGE, GANGAVATHI, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583 227. 5. SRI. SHIVARAJ S. TANGADI, MINISTER FRO BACKWARD CLASS WELFARE, KANNADA AND CULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND MINISTER FOR KOPPAL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION, NO.133-134, 1ST FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. MAQBOOLAHMED M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R6; NOTICE TO R5 IS SERVED) 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, ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 TO FORTHWITH CONSIDER THE APPLICATION DATED 25-11- 2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND CONSEQUENTLY THE FURTHER REPRESENTATION DATED 02-05-2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-M THEREBY PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO SHIFT THE LICENSED BUSINESS AS SOUGHT FOR AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18367 WP No. 105636 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and learned counsel for impleading applicant No.6. 2. The petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus and other direction to respondents 2 and 3 to consider the application dated 25.11.2024 as per Annexure - D and also to consider the representation dated 02.05.2025 marked at Annexure - M and to permit the petitioner to shift the business as sought for. A prayer is also sought to quash Annexure–R2, the order passed by respondent No.2. 3. In terms of the application dated 25.11.2024, the petitioner has sought permission to shift his business covered under CL-2 license. The representation dated 02.05.2025 is also to permit the petitioner to shift the business to the new premises at Elvi Complex, Nos.21 and 22, R. G. Road, Gangavathi. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18367 WP No. 105636 of 2025 4. In terms of the impugned order at Annexure - D, petitioner's request is rejected by the Commissioner of Excise. Hence, petitioner is before this Court. 5. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, the premises in which the business is sought to be shifted is nearer to a State Highway and infact, there was no median in the State Highway and to reach the premises where the business is sought to be shifted through the State Highway without median opening, it would be 250 mtrs from the State Highway where median is removed and median is removed without the authority of law. Even, if the distance from the median is taken into account, distance would be from the hospital to new premises 71 mtrs, as such, the petitioner has made out a case for relaxation of the condition under proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 (Rules, 1967). 6. It is further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner of Excise has recommended for transfer of business to the new premises under CL-2 license and the said recommendation is not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18367 WP No. 105636 of 2025 considered and recommendation is rejected without there being any reasoned order. 7. It is also submitted that there is no reason to refuse the recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, given the fact that the premises to which the business is sought to be shifted is at a distance of 71 meters from the hospital assuming that median is legally removed 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate would defend the impugned order and would submit that since there is objection by the institutions, public and the people’s representative, the Commissioner of Excise is justified in refusing the permission to shift the premises. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the impleading applicant would submit that the Commissioner of Excise has exercised the discretion available under proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of Rules, 1967 and would contend that no case is made out to exercise the jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner by setting aside the impugned order. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18367 WP No. 105636 of 2025 10. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 11. It is to be noticed that order dated 29.08.2025 marked at Annexure - D is passed by referring to four documents viz., the recommendation dated 15.05.2005 and 06.06.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, the communication addressed by the Commissioner of Excise and also the communication dated 15.05.2025 addressed by the Joint Commissioner of Excise. 12. The Court has perused the recommendations dated 15.05.2025 and 06.06.2025. 13. In the recommendation dated 15.05.2025, after considering the materials the Deputy Commissioner of Excise has opined that the relaxation sought by the petitioner can be considered as the hospital is at a distance of more than 50 meters (with median opening) from the place where the business is sought to be shifted. In terms of the communication dated 06.06.2025, it is also noticed that no objection is raised for proposed shifting. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18367 WP No. 105636 of 2025 14. It is also noticed that there is no dispute that the place where the business is sought to be shifted is at a distance of 71 mtrs from the hospital, if median opening is held to be legal. 15. The case of the petitioner certainly falls under sub- rule (2) of Rule 5 of Rules, 1967. Though Commissioner of Excise has the discretion to relax the condition or not to relax based on the proposal, the discretion has to be exercised judiciously. In the three documents referred to above in the order dated 29.08.2025, there is no objection to shift the premises to the place where the petitioner has sought. 16. The impugned order at Annexure - D only indicates that there is objection by the representative of people, the institutions and the public. However, which institution has objected is not forth coming. The nature of objection is not elaborately spelt out. The reasons are not supported by the materials that are referred to in the orders. 17. Under the circumstances, the Court is of the view that the Commissioner of Excise could not have rejected the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18367 WP No. 105636 of 2025 recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise given the fact that the petitioner has made out a case for relaxation of the condition under proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of Rules, 1967. 18. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) Impugned order at Annexure - D is quashed. (iii) The Deputy Commissioner of Excise shall issue necessary permission to the petitioner for shifting the premises to the proposed new premises. (iv) If any other condition is required to be complied under law by the petitioner, same shall have to be complied. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN/- CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 66