AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Patil, J.—The petitioner is a holder of CL-2 license and he was running his business of retail vending of liquor in the premises situated at Sy. No. 211/18 of Makutta Kakathodu of Heggala Village, Virajpet Taluk, in the name and style of "Kamadhenu Wines." According to the petitioner, property where the business is run belongs to Betoli Grama Panchayath and the same was leased by the Grama Panchayath during the year 2010 for a period of five years. Petitioner was issued with CL-2 license and was carrying on his business in a shop at Madikeri Town. He claims to have shifted the business to the present premises as per the order dated 14.06.2010 passed by the) Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu District, Madikeri. The license was subsequently renewed and license so renewed expired on 13.06.2013.
Though the petitioner had applied for renewal by paying the requisite fee on 15.06.2013, the authorities have not renewed the same. Instead the Deputy Commissioner, respondent No. 3 herein has issued the impugned endorsement dated 10.07.2013 produced at Annexure - "A" declining the request made on the ground that in the RTC extract of the land bearing Sy. No. 211/18, the ownership of the land is recorded in the name of the Forest Department. It is this endorsement that is called in question in this writ petition.
At the outset, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the endorsement issued is patently illegal inasmuch as the petitioner has not been provided with any opportunity to have a say in the matter to show that the place of business run by him belonged to Grama Panchayath and the Grama Panchayath had executed Lease Deed in his favour. It is his submission that if only an opportunity had been given, the petitioner would have satisfied the authority that the land is not a forest land, but it indeed belonged to the Grama Panchayath.
Learned Additional Advocate General representing the State and its authority submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of preferring an appeal before the Excise Commissioner in view of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 61 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. He further asserts on merits that the State has got several documents to show that the property belongs to the Forest Department. He intends to place those documents on record, if sufficient time is granted.
Having considered the respective contentions and on perusal of the impugned endorsement at Annexure - "A", I find that the impugned endorsement is issued only on the basis of the entries found in the RTC. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner was given any opportunity of being heard before issuing the impugned endorsement. By the impugned endorsement, renewal of license is refused on the ground that the land in question belonged to Forest Department. It is not in dispute that petitioner has been running the business in the same premises after having obtained license from the authority. If the Deputy Commissioner is of the view that the land indeed belonged to the Forest Department, therefore, renewal of license could not be granted, he ought to have recorded such a finding only after giving an opportunity to the applicant before him/petitioner herein. The order suffers from non application of mind to the relevant facts, apart from being violative of the principles of natural justice.
It is well established that when a quasi judicial authority vested with the powers of the nature as is involved in the case on hand, fails to observe the principles of natural justice and passes an order without applying the mind to the relevant facts and circumstances, then this Court will normally not relegate the said person to the alternative remedy. Indeed this position has been made clear in the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mariamma Roy Vs. Indian Bank and Others, .
As I have held that the impugned endorsement issued by the Deputy Commissioner is without application of mind and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to have his say in the matter, the impugned endorsement issued by the Deputy Commissioner requires to be set aside. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement is set aside. It is made clear that all the contentions on merits are left open. It is open for both parties including the Forest Department to place all the materials before the Deputy Commissioner in support of their contention. The Deputy Commissioner shall consider the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
In the light of the order passed on merit, it is not necessary to pass any separate order on the impleading application. The impleading applicant is also at liberty to have his say before the Deputy Commissioner.