A. Nagaraja vs Excise Commissioner, Shanthinagar, Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Chikkaballapur District, Excise Inspector, Sidlaghatta and Karnataka State Beverage Corporation Ltd., Manager, Sidlaghatta Depo.

B.S. Patil, J.—This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 to renew the license of the petitioner in terms of the order dated 11.06.2013 subsequently extended on 19.09.2013. The facts involved in this writ petition stated in brief are that the petitioner holds a CL-9 license to vend liquor in the premises bearing No. 1163/1119, Old Hospital Road, Sidlaghatta. Since 1992-93, petitioner has been running a bar and restaurant under the name and style M/s. Manjunath Bar and Restaurant. It is currently running under the name and style Dolphins Bar and Restaurant. In the year 1995-96, petitioner had applied had for renewal of his license. As one Rama Bhajan Mandir Trust had raised objections for renewal, an endorsement came to be issued refusing to renew the license stating that it was situated at a distance of about 52 meters from the Bhajan Mandir. Challenging the said endorsement, petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 27257/95.

This Court vide order dated 16.08.1995 allowed the writ petition and quashed the endorsement issued. In paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of the order, this Court made certain specific observations doubting the bonafides of the objector in raising the objections. Indeed, this Court has found that the premises for which CL-9 license was granted and where his business was conducted dated back to 1992-93. Whereas the Trust which raised the objection was registered on 22.10.1993. This Court also pointed out that mere fact that some people gathered to offer bhajan can hardly be described as a place meant for religious institution where religious activities were going on. In fact, this order passed by this Court is produced at Annexure-A.

It is useful to extract the observations made in para 10 of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 27257/1995.

I direct that the 3rd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of licence independent of the objection referred to Annexure-C. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure-C stands quashed. The 3rd respondent shall consider the application of the petitioner independently.

Thereafter, as the lease period was extended from time to time, petitioner continued to carry on the business in the said premises. However, the 2nd respondent - Deputy Commissioner for Excise, Chikkaballapur, refused to renew the license by passing an order dated 22.05.2013 again on the same ground stating that Ram Bhajan Mandir Trust had raised objection. The petitioner was called upon to shift the business from his premises to other place. This order was challenged before the Commissioner for Excise - the 1st respondent herein. An interim order of stay was granted on 11.06.2013 staying the order passed by the 2nd respondent. Pursuant to this interim order, petitioner was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- along with license fee of Rs. 48,000/- for the purpose of renewal of license. The petitioner having deposited such amount, the 2nd respondent renewed the license but only till 25.07.2013. Thereafter, on the representation of the petitioner and upon the extension of the interim order by the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent has gone on periodically renewing the license. However, when respondents 2 and 3 refused to renew the license and allow the petitioner to carry on the business putting forward certain excuses and the petitioner was virtually forced to close the shop, he approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. This Court granted an interim order on 20.09.2013 which reads as under:

As it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that despite the interim order granted periodically for a limited period by the 1st respondent, respondents 3 and 4 are not acting in aid of the interim order and are virtually preventing the petitioner from carrying on the business in the premises, learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondents 1 to 3.

Issue Emergent notice to respondent No. 4.

In the meanwhile, respondents 3 and 4 are directed to permit the petitioner to carry on his lawful business without any interference during the pendency of the appeal before the 1st respondent.

Thereafter, the petitioner has been permitted to carry on his business. The same is done only by periodically renewing the license. In the meanwhile, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Excise Commissioner has been allowed. The order directing the petitioner to shift the premises has been set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner for Excise, Chikkaballapur to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to the appellant and to the objectors, if any.

Learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that even after the order passed by the Excise Commissioner setting aside the order earlier passed by the 2nd respondent - the Deputy commissioner for Excise, the 2nd respondent is only renewing the license intermittently. He submits that the license was earlier renewed up to 25.07.2013 later on till 22.08.2013 and thereafter till 19.09.2013 and 24.10.2013. He further submits that currently the license is renewed only up to 31.12.2013. His submission is that the license ought to have been renewed for the excise year.

It has to be seen here that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Excise directing the petitioner to shift the premises has been set aside. Petitioner is entitled to run the business without any interference. The license has to be renewed for the Excise year. The facts and circumstances of the case disclose that the petitioner has been made to face the litigation right from the year 1995. The petitioner cannot be forced to make representation every month before the 2nd respondent seeking renewal of the license month to month. Such method adopted by the 2nd respondent is unreasonable. It will be open to the 2nd respondent to hear the matter which is remanded to him and pass appropriate order taking note of the history of this case and by following the order and the direction issued by this Court in W.P. No. 27257/95. The authority cannot ignore the directions issued by this Court as otherwise it will lead to encouraging the objector to renew the same objections each time the licence is renewed. But that does not mean that the petitioner can be subjected to the ordeal of getting his license renewed each month. Therefore, a direction deserves to be issued to the 2nd respondent to renew the license for the Excise year. It will be open for him to consider the matter regarding the objection raised by the Bajan Mandir by hearing both parties and strictly keeping in mind the orders earlier passed by this Court in W.P. No. 27257/95.

Petition is accordingly disposed of.