- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14217 RP No. 344 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REVIEW PETITION NO. 344 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE IN KARNATAKA, 2ND FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING, 'A' BLOCK, SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 027. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT (BUD-08), ABAKHARI BHAVAN, BYATARAYANAPURA, MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU 560 026. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH A .,AGA) AND: 1. KARTHYAYINI W/O LATE M.HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS 2. SRI H.MAHESH S/O LATE H.HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14217 RP No. 344 of 2025 BOTH ARE RESIDING AT "VAJRAGIRI" 16 K.M., 2ND CROSS, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, THALAGHATTAPURA POST, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU 560 062. 3. SMT. R.POORNIMA, W/O LATE H.GIRISH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BAIRAVA NILAYA, 1ST CROSS, 2ND MAIN, AVALAHALLI, BENGALURU 560 026. …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION S FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 26.07.2024 PASSED IN WP NO.9222/2022 (EXCISE), A COPY OF THE SAME IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE A AND REHEAR THE MATTER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14217 RP No. 344 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The present review petition is filed seeking to review the order dated 26.07.2024 passed in W.P.No.9222/2022, whereby this Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the compromise arrived between the parties regarding succession and transfer of CL-2 licence and CL-9 licence attached with RVB licence held by deceased Sri. H.Girish under Rule 17A of the Karnataka Excise Licenses (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 (for short 'Excise Rules'). 2. Learned counsel for the review petitioners would contend that the order dated 26.07.2024 is liable to be reviewed contending that the transfer of excise license must strictly comply with the provisions of Rules 17A and 17B of the Excise Rules and therefore, the compromise entered between the parties cannot override the statutory scheme. It is submitted that the compromise allegedly circumvents the statutory requirement of payment of transfer fees prescribed under the Excise Rules and on this - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14217 RP No. 344 of 2025 ground the review petitioners submits that the order passed by this Court requires reconsideration in excise of review jurisdiction. 3. This Court has carefully considered the contentions and perused the materials placed on record. 4. The order dated 26.07.2024 was passed after taking note of the compromise petition voluntarily filed by the parties, wherein the petitioners consented to the arrangement regarding succession of the license. The Court accepted the compromise and directed the authorities to act in terms of the same. The contention urged in the review petition that the compromise accepted by this Court is contrary to Rules 17A and 17B of the Excise Rules and that the excise license generate substantial revenue of the State, therefore, the transfer of such license cannot be permitted on basis of the compromise between the parties. The said contention cannot be accepted. The compromise merely resolved the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14217 RP No. 344 of 2025 inter-se dispute between the legal heirs as to who could succeed to their respective license. Acceptance of such compromise, does not in any manner take away or dilute the statutory powers of the Excise Authorities nor it exempts the parties from complying the requirements of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and the Excise Rules. The transfer of license would still be subject to the compliance of Rules 17A and 17B of the Excise Rules including payment of requisite transfer fee and other statutory dues payable to the State. Therefore, it cannot be said that the compromise accepted by this Court is opposed to public policy or prejudicial to the revenue interest of the State. 5. It is well settled that the power of review is extremely limited and can be exercised only when there is a manifest error apparent on the face of records. The grounds urged in the present petition would essentially seek reconsideration of the merits of the order, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction. There is no error apparent on the face of record and the review petition - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14217 RP No. 344 of 2025 does not warrant any interference. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of the review petition does not preclude the review petitioners from availing such remedies as available, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11