P. Shivanna vs The Commissioner of Excise in Karnataka, The Deputy Commissioner Mysore, and The Deputy Commissioner Of Excise, Mysore

B.S. Patil, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government-Pleader. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.06.2006 passed by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Mysore, directing the petitioner to shift the premises where the bar and restaurant is run by obtaining CL-9 license and to submit a proposal for renewal of the license, failing which the trading activities in the existing premises would be stopped.

Appeal filed against the impugned order was dismissed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on 16.06.2011 observing as under in paragraph 17:

License was renewed in the guise of interim order from time to time. The excise year commence from 1st July and ends on 30th June of next year. So the excise year has to end on 30.06.2011. Under these circumstances, if the licensee makes an application for renewal of license, the Authority is not precluded to consider the application on merits in accordance with law

Based on such observation while dismissing the appeal, liberty was reserved to the appellant-petitioner herein to seek renewal of the license and so also the Deputy Commissioner was reserved liberty to consider the same and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after considering the objections, if any, from any corner.

It is not in dispute that after this order passed by the Tribunal, CL-9 license of the petitioner has been renewed in respect of the existing premises without insisting upon the petitioner to shift the premises for the purpose of running the bar and restaurant. However, the grievance of the petitioner now is that based on the orders earlier passed by the Deputy Commissioner'' and as affirmed in appeal by the Tribunal, the respondent-Authorities including the concerned police have been preventing the petitioner from running the business in the premises in question for which license has been renewed and is valid till 30.06.2014.

Learned Government Pleader submits that there is no material produced by the petitioner to show that any such action is initiated against the petitioner and therefore, this writ petition is premature.

Having heard the learned counsel for both parties, I find'' that as long as the license duly renewed in respect of the premises is in force, the same will enure to the benefit of the petitioner. If any action has to be taken by the Authorities, the same has to be done in accordance with law. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court, in case any adverse order is passed or action is taken by any of the Authorities in future.