- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45233 WP No. 8025 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.8025 OF 2025 (EXCISE) BETWEEN: 1. SRI AVINASH C.N. AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O NAGARAJA C.S., AGED R/AT NO.457, CHABBENADU, MUTHINAKOPPA VILLAGE AND PANCHAYATH, NARASIMHARAJAPURA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577134. 2. SRI SUPRATH M.N. S/O. LATE D.P. NARAYANAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUTHINAKOPPA VILLAGE AND PANCHAYATH, N.R. PURA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577134. (PETITIONER NO.2 IS DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 19.03.2025) …PETITIONER (BY SRI VIVEK SUBBAREDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI RAMESH G.P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VOKKALIGARA BHAVANA, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45233 WP No. 8025 of 2025 HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKMAGALURU-577101. 3. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, N.R. PURA, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577134. 4. M/S. MSIL, CHIKKAMAGALURU, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER-577101. REPRESENTED BY ITS (A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING) 5. SRI PRADEEP .R S/O RAVI .B AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT DODDINATALE KUSABUR, MUTHINAKOPPA, N.R. PURA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT–577134. 6. SRI YALLESH C/O SHEKHARAPPA BOVI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, JAYANTHI GRAMA, K. KANABUR, MUTHINAKOPPA, N.R. PURA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT–577134. 7. SRI VARGHESE AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, HOSAKOPPA, KUSABUR, MUTHINAKOPPA, N.R. PURA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT–577134. 8. SRI K.K. MATHAYI S/O KURIYAKOSE K.K. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45233 WP No. 8025 of 2025 AGED AOBUT 62 YEARS, R/AT YAKKADABAYLU, MADABURU, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK & DISTRICT–577134. 9. SRI HARISH M.V. S/O VITTALA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT BYRAPURA, MUTHINAKOPPA, N.R. PURA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTIRICT–577134. 10. SRI RAVI S/O LATE BAIRAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT DODDINATALE, KUSBOOR, KUSABUR, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577134. (AMENDED CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 02.07.2025) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAJ KUMAR M., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI B.S. GAUTHAM, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; SRI M.C. JAYAKIRTHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-5 TO R-10) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT RELATING TO THE CASE NO.Exe/IML/KoovaCL- 11(c)/96/2024-25; CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT RELATING TO THE CASE NO.Exe/IML/KoovaCL-11(c)/96/2024-25 AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45233 WP No. 8025 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has questioned the legality of the order dated 13.03.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Chikkamagaluru, permitting the respondent No.4-M/s. MSIL to shift its CL-11-C retail liquor vending licence from its existing premises at Kuvempunagar, Harandur, NR Pura Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District to the premises situated at Sy. No.203/5, Nerale Village, Muttinakoppa Grama Panchayath, NR Pura Taluk. 2. The petitioner, a resident of Muttinakoppa Village, objected to the proposed shifting. The Deputy Commissioner recommended the shifting of the shop. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 61 (2) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (‘Act’ for short) before the Excise Commissioner, seeking an interim stay of the recommendation dated 27.02.2025. The appeal was listed on 12.03.2025 and adjourned to 23.02.2025 after hearing the interim application. However, before any order was pronounced, in the interregnum, the Deputy - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45233 WP No. 8025 of 2025 Commissioner, on 13.03.2025, proceeded to issue the impugned order granting permission for shifting, thereby prompting the petitioner to approach this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Heard Sri Vivek Subbareddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri Raj Kumar .M, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri B.S. Gautham, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Sri M.C. Jayakirthi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 10. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of Deputy Commissioner is in violation of Rule 12 of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968 and the Excise Commissioner's Circular dated 06.10.2016, which stipulates that CL-11-C licence shall be issued only where no other outlets exist. It is argued that the Deputy Commissioner acted in haste manner and passed the impugned order during the pendency of a duly filed and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45233 WP No. 8025 of 2025 listed appeal. It is submitted that, although mere filing of an appeal does not automatically stay the impugned order, in the present case, the appeal had been duly listed and heard on the interim application, and hence judicial propriety required the subordinate authority to refrain from acting till the appellate authority passed orders. The inaction of the Excise Commissioner in not pronouncing the order, coupled with the haste shown by the Deputy Commissioner, has frustrated the statutory appellate remedy. 5. The respondents on the other hand, submits that the Deputy Commissioner acted within his power and that, unless the Excise Commissioner specifically granted stay, pendency of the appeal could not operate as a bar for further administrative action. 6. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged and perused the material on record. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45233 WP No. 8025 of 2025 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Excise Commissioner under Section 61 (2) of the Act within time and same was listed for orders on the interlocutory application for stay. During the pendency of the appeal, the Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order dated 13.03.2025, permitting the shifting of the CL-11 licence. 8. It is settled law that mere filing of an appeal does not by itself stay the operation of the impugned order. However, when the appeal has been admitted, heard and is pending pronouncement, judicial proprietary demands that the subordinate authority refrain from taking further steps, in a manner that would render the appellate proceedings infructuous. The Excise Commissioner, being the Chief Controlling Authority under Section 3 of the Act, was under statutory duty to exercise effective supervisory control either by granting or rejecting interim relief, or by directing maintenance of status quo. His failure to do so, coupled with the precipitate action of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45233 WP No. 8025 of 2025 the Deputy Commissioner, demonstrate administrative lapse and has frustrated the efficacy of statutory appellate remedy under Section 61 of the Act. The petitioner is also at liberty to challenge the order dated 13.03.2025. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition stands disposed of, relegating the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy before the Excise Commissioner under Section 61 (1) of the Act. ii. The Excise Commissioner shall consider and dispose of the pending appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 27.02.2025 as well as the consequential order dated 13.03.2025, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties including respondent No.4. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45233 WP No. 8025 of 2025 iii. The Excise Commissioner shall also consider the interim application filed by the petitioner seeking stay of the impugned order and shall pass an independent, reasoned and speaking order thereon, within a period of two weeks from the date of certified copy of this order. iv. Till then, the operation of the order dated 13.03.2025, permitting the shifting of CL-11- C licence shall remain in abeyance. v. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions, and all the issues are left open to be urged before the Appellate Authority. Pending I.A.s if any, does not survive for consideration. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14