Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 700 (KAR)

Rezzak Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

2014-08-01

RAM MOHAN REDDY

body2014
Judgment : 1. The exercise of jurisdiction under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968, for short 'Rules', in many a decision of this court, it is held, that the Licencing authority none other than the Deputy Commissioner- Revenue is required to issue a show cause notice inviting an explanation from the licence holder and thereafter pass orders in the matter of levying penalty for short lifting of liquor during the excise year. The law laid down by this Court is in tandem with the statutory provisions required to be adhered to and complied with by the Authorities. 2. Despite the statutory compulsions and the order of this Court the Deputy Commissioner of Excise issued a show cause notice dated 17.6.2013 Annexure-D without jurisdiction and competence since such a notice could be issued only by the Licencing Authority, i.e. Deputy Commissioner (Revenue). So also by demand notice dated 7.7.2012 Annexure-C, the Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) directed payment of a certain sum of money towards penalty for not lifting the quantity of liquor for the months of July 2009 and May 2010, without issuing a show cause notice calling for an explanation. 3. The Inspector of Excise is said to have issued the challan Annexure-H calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs.12,14,005/- as penalty for the purpose of considering the application for renewal of the Excise licence, though neither Rules nor the Act invest a jurisdiction in the Inspector of Excise to issue a challan. 4. In compliance with the order dated 31.7.2014, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Deputy Commissioner of Revenue and the Inspector of Excise, Ulsoor range have filed their respective affidavits tendering unconditional apology for their actions called in question in these petitions. 5. To a question of this Court, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise submits that his initial appointment in the State of Karnataka was as First Division Assistant in the year 1981, and over the years has risen to the post of Deputy Commissioner. The educational qualification of the said officer is said to be a graduation in Arts in the year 1975 having no knowledge of law and its application. 6. The educational qualification of the said officer is said to be a graduation in Arts in the year 1975 having no knowledge of law and its application. 6. This is not the first case in which this Court has noticed that First Division Assistants have become Deputy Commissioners, while in one case a Class IV is promoted as Joint Commissioner of Excise, which is not surprising, knowing how successive governments have carried on their business. Competence is given a back seat while incompetence is always favoured by the State and its authorities leading to multiplicity of proceedings and knocking the doors of this Court as well as other competent courts. It is high time the State Government wakes up from its deep slumber and attaches importance to competence and merit for the purpose of promoting individuals to higher posts of authority. 7. Sri.Ponnanna, learned AAG submits that necessary advise would be tendered to the State Government in this regard as it is an eye opener and an attempt would be made to ensure that competent persons are posted to posts of authority. 8. There is always a ray of hope that somebody in the higher echelons of bureaucracy or the present dispensation would take action in this regard as otherwise this Court would be plagued with unnecessary litigations consuming public time merely, because of incompetent officers. Affidavits filed by the three officers and their apology tendered is accepted. 9. Having regard to what is stated supra and the fact that neither the demand notice Annexure-C issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), or the show cause notice Annexure-D issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise are in accordance with law call forth interference, and are accordingly quashed. Since petitioner has deposited Rs.12,14,005/- under Annexure- H, challan, said to have been issued by a person who had no authority i.e. Inspector of Excise, the respondents are directed to forthwith refund Rs.12,14,005/-with interest from 16.5.2014 upto the date of payment of interest at the rate of 12% p.a. The State Government is directed to ensure payment of the said sum of interest to the petitioners and recover the same from the salaries of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise and Inspector of Excise. Compliance within a week. Petitions are ordered accordingly.