- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25256 WP No. 15070 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 15070 OF 2026 (EXCISE) BETWEEN: M/S. S.R. ENTERPRISES, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT NO.971/4, 15TH 'A' CROSS, KHBA SECTOR, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU-560 064. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS- SMT. UMADEVI Y.K. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER IN KARNATAKA, 2ND FLOOR, BMTC TTMC BUILDING, 'A' BLOCK, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT (BUD - 1), KSDL COMPLEX, YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU-560 064. 3. SRI. P. RAMA REDDY, S/O. LATE PEDDAVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25256 WP No. 15070 of 2026 RESIDING AT 1ST FLOOR, NO. 971/4, 15TH 'A' CROSS, NEAR AGRAGAMANI COLLEGE, KHBA SECTOR, 3RD PHASE, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU-560 064. 4. VRUKSHAMATHE SAALUMARADA THIMMAKKA VEDIKE (R), STATE COMMITTEE, NO.2026, 3RD 'A' CROSS, YELAHANKA SATELLITE TOWN, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 064. REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PRESIDENT - SRI. MARAPPA. 5. DALITHA SANGHARSHA SAMITHI (R), SAMATHAVADA, STATE COMMITTEE, NO.1, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR NAGAR, A SECTOR, 15TH MAIN ROAD, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU-560 064. REPRESENTED BY ITS FOUNDING PRESIDENT- SRI. MARAPPA. 6. SRI. MARAPPA, S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.167, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR NAGAR, 15TH 'A' CROSS, A SECTOR, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064. 7. SRI. RAMESH R., S/O. RAMAKRISHNA, MAJOR, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25256 WP No. 15070 of 2026 RESIDING AT NO.46, OPPOSITE VINAYAKA PARK, A SECTOR, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064. 8. SRI. M.M. MUNIRAJU, S/O. LATE M C MUNIHANUMAIAH, MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.2, 4TH MAIN ROAD, MATHRU LAYOUT, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064. 9. SRI. SANDEEP B., S/O. BALATHARANI K, MAJOR, RESIDING AT BHAGYADEEP, 2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064. 10. SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR G., S/O. GOPAL, MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.42, OLD POST OFFICE ROAD, NEAR SHUSHRUSHA NURSING HOME, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064. 11. SRI. PRAKASH T., S/O. BALATHARANI K, MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO. 37, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 3RD B CROSS, BEHIND KANTI SWEETS, YELAHANKA, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25256 WP No. 15070 of 2026 BENGALURU-560 064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISHA. A.S., AGA FOR R1 AND 2; SRI. S.V. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3(CP.NO.11490/26); SRI. PRAVEEN KAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHATHABISH SHIVANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO 11) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS, TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28/04/2026 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN APPEAL NO. ECS/32/APP/2026 (ANNEXURE A) AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT THE INTERIM ORDER AS PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE - C1) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25256 WP No. 15070 of 2026 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: "The petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to: a) Call for records from the Respondents; b) Issue a Writ or order in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impunged order dated 28.04.2026 passed by the 1st respondent in Appeal No.ECS/32/APP/2026 (Annexure-A) and consequently grant the interim order as prayed for by the petitioner before the 1st Respondent (Annexure-C1), to meet the ends of justice, to meet the ends of justice. c) Pass such other Orders which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice." 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is the registered partnership firm and a CL-2 license holder. The petitioner was conducting its business of running a wine shop at No.405, Amruthahalli Main Road, Jakkur, Bangalore. Due to lack of business turnover, the petitioner made an application to shift the business to a new premises i.e., No.971/4, 15th 'A' Cross, KHBA Sector, Yelahanka New Town, Bengaluru. On receipt of the application, respondent No.2 obtained a report from the Range Inspector and the Superintendent of Excise. A spot inspection was conducted and Mahazar was drawn up. As - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25256 WP No. 15070 of 2026 per the same, the premises is free from the restrictions laid down under the Karnataka Excise License (General Conditions) Rules, 1967, the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and any other rules applicable. There has been no objections from the public and the permission was granted to the petitioner to shift the premises. Accordingly, an order was passed on 09.12.2025 and in accordance with the order passed, the petitioner has shifted the shop by investing heavy amounts. However, within one month from the date of commencement of business in the premises, respondent No.3 started demanding more rent and unreasonable deposits towards the use of the premises and as the petitioner has not yielded to the same, respondent No.3 and some of his associates submitted objections to respondent No.2 and sought to shift the wine shop from the premises to another location. Based on the objections, the petitioner was issued with an enquiry notice on 29.01.2026 to appear before respondent No.2 on 18.02.2026 at 02.30 p.m. It is stated that respondent No.2 had heard respondent No.3 to whom no notice was issued, yet was present and participated in the proceedings. Respondent No.2 directed respondent No.3 to conduct the survey and draw a mahazar. Without notice to the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25256 WP No. 15070 of 2026 petitioners, a survey was conducted and a report was drawn, which was submitted to respondent No.2 on 02.03.2026. On 02.03.2026, respondent No.2, without any notice to the petitioner and without affording an opportunity of being heard, heard respondent No.3 and reserved the matter by concluding the proceedings. Thereafter, on 09.03.2026, respondent No.2 passed an order directing the petitioner to shift the licensed premises to some other unobjectionable place within a period of 30 days. The petitioner has challenged the said order by filing appeal before respondent No.1 and sought an interim order. An interim order of stay was granted on 02.04.2026. On 23.04.2026, respondent No.3 filed an application to implead himself as respondent No.2 and a memo to vacate the interim order and also on the same day, respondent Nos.4 to 11 filed a common application for impleading as well as an application for vacating the interim order. On the same day, respondent No.2 filed the statement of objections with a prayer to vacate the interim order as well as to dismiss the appeal. All the impleading applications were allowed on 23.04.2026 without affording an opportunity to the petitioner and posted the matter to 27.04.2026 for "hearing". On 27.04.2026, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25256 WP No. 15070 of 2026 respondent No.3 filed an application seeking for vacating the interim order dated 02.04.2026 as well as a memo with documents. Respondent No.1 heard the matter on 27.04.2026. On 28.04.2026 passed the impugned order allowing the application filed by the respondents. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order that is passed by respondent No.1 is without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. It is submitted that respondent Nos.4 to 11, who have filed an impleading application, have no connection whatsoever with the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3. Without affording an opportunity to the petitioner, respondent No.1 allowed the said application. It is submitted that even the inspection that is conducted is also without affording an opportunity to the petitioner and that is against the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the order impugned needs to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that in fact, the petitioner is acting contrary to the permission that is granted. Instead of selling the bottles, they - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25256 WP No. 15070 of 2026 are serving the customers and after consuming the same people around. It is further submitted that there is a school situated within 100 metres from the said premises. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 11 submits that they are affected by the permission that is granted to the petitioner. It is submitted that it is having an impact on the women and children. Without considering all these aspects, the permission is granted by respondent No.1. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. Firstly, the main grievance of the petitioner is without considering the objections that are filed by respondent No.3 and the other respondents, without affording an opportunity and contrary to the principles of natural justice, a survey was conducted. Secondly, the impleading applications are allowed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. Thirdly, in a way, respondent No.1 has virtually decided all the disputes without a reasonable opportunity. This Court had perused the material on record. When a particular premises is within the prohibited limits as per the Act and the Rules, the respondent No.1 cannot grant any - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25256 WP No. 15070 of 2026 permission to establish the shop. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not the case of respondent No.3 that it is within the prohibited limits. Be that as it may, the respondents ought to have given a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, even when an impleading application is filed by respondent Nos.4 to 11. Respondent No.1 ought to have given reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to file its objections whether they are in any way related to this dispute and whether they are proper and necessary parties. In the interest of all the parties and in the interest of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and give a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and to all other affected parties so that an order can be passed by respondent No.1. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The impugned order passed in Appeal No.ECS/32/APP/2026 dated 28.04.2026 by respondent No.1/Excise Commissioner in Karnataka is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the appellant authority. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25256 WP No. 15070 of 2026 ii. All the contentions are kept open to the parties to agitate before respondent No.1. iii. A fresh survey shall be conducted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 by giving a reasonable opportunity to both the petitioner as well as the unofficial respondents. iv. The entire exercise shall be concluded within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. v. All the parties shall co-operate with respondent Nos.1 and 2. If they fail to co-operate and appear on that day, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are at liberty to conclude the spot inspection. vi. Petitioner shall have the benefit of the interim order till the exercise is completed as per the earlier order passed by this Court. vii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. viii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16