Smt. Rajanamani vs State of Karnataka and Others

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—The Petitioner has made an application to transfer Excise Licence in Form CL-9 standing in the name of Sri H.M. Srinivas into her name. Said application was submitted on 28.2.2013 along with the challan for having remitted the transfer fee. Though 4th respondent - Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Mandya, recommended the case of the petitioner for transfer of Licence, the transfer having not been effected, this Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 13.6.2013 as at Annexure-J without insisting upon additional transfer fee being remitted and for grant of consequential reliefs. Sri Narendra Gowda, learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the non-consideration of the application dated 28.2.2013 submitted by the petitioner seeking transfer of CL-9 licence in favour of the petitioner standing in the name of Sri H.M. Srinivas is arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel further submitted that there is a discretionary treatment given to the petitioner and in the circumstances, the respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner''s application seeking transfer as well as the representation as at Annexure-J submitted on 13.6.2013 and pass lawful order.

Sri T.K. Vedamurthy, learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand submitted that the matter is squarely covered by an order dated 1.7.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 23735/2013 and connected cases and unless the petitioner remits the stipulated fee and complies with the lawful requirements, the transfer of licence sought for by her cannot be effected and the licence renewed. Learned counsel further submitted that soon after the petitioner remits the fee in terms of the amended Rule and complies with all the lawful requirements, the respondents would take action without any delay.

Validity of the Karnataka Excise Licence (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 as amended by the State Government on 28.2.2013, was questioned by Sri Sanjay Shetty and others in Writ Petition Nos. 23735/2013 and connected Writ Petitions. The points which arose for consideration and decision on the contentions urged were the following: (1) Whether the amendment to Rule 17-B of the Karnataka Excise Licence (General Conditions) Rules, 1967, substituting the words, subject to Payment of transfer fee equivalent to twice the annual licence fee, is valid?

(2) Whether an application filed for transfer of CL-9 licence should be considered with reference to the Rules as they existed when the application was made or in accordance with the Rules as in force on the date of consideration?

Taking note of the rival contentions and the settled position of law by the catena of decisions of the Apex Court, it was held that the Writ Petitions are devoid of merit.

The petitioner having submitted the application on 28.2.2013 to transfer the licence standing in the name of Sri H.M. Srinivas in her favour, should pay the licence fee in terms of the Notification issued by the Government on 28.2.2013, amending Rule 17-B of the Karnataka Excise Licence (General Conditions) (amendment) Rules, 1967 substituting the words "subject to Payment of transfer fee equivalent to twice the annual licence fee". The vires of the amended Rule having been upheld, the respondents are justified in insisting the petitioner to pay the transfer fee equivalent to twice the annual fee for consideration of her application i.e. transfer of form CL-9 licence. There being non compliance on the part of the petitioner in the matter of payment of transfer fee equivalent to twice the annual fee, no direction can be issued to the respondents. The matter is squarely covered by the order dated 1.7.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 23735/2013 and connected cases. Following the said order, this petition being identical and being devoid of merit is rejected. However, it is made clear that the rejection of the Writ Petition would not come in the way of the respondents considering the application of the petitioner upon payment of the stipulated fee and complying with the lawful requirements.

Sri T.K. Vedamurthy is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.