Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 146 (KAR)

Dakshina Kannada Wine Merchants Association v. State of Karnataka

2015-02-04

H.G.RAMESH

body2015
Order H.G. Ramesh, J. 1. Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for the respondents. Petitioners are before this Court seeking for issue of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned notice issued to them at Annexures-B1 to B10 and also to declare that Rules 14, 14-A and 14-B of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968 (for short, 'the Rules') as redundant. 2. It appears, during April 2003, Rules 14, 14-A and 14-B came to be inserted to the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968. During July 2005, the Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited came to be set up by the Government to regulate the flow of liquor from the manufacturer to the retailers like petitioners 2 to 11. Pursuance to which, CL-1 licenses were abolished and the petitioners were required to procure their requisite quantity of liquor from the Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited depot thereby curbing the illicit sale of liquor. During January 2012, the State Government has published draft Rules for omitting Rules 14, 14-A and 14-B of the Rules notifying the public at large that the said Rules will be taken into consideration after expiry of thirty days. During May 2014, respondent 2 wrote a letter to respondent 4 asking explanation regarding the short lift of the liquor and also it was addressed to petitioners 2 to 11 and other licensees to send the same to the Public Accounts Committee to take up Central Audit Committee reports. Based on the said representation, respondent 4 and his subordinates issued notice to the petitioners calling upon them to pay the penalty under Rule 14-B of the Rules, without hearing the petitioners which according to the petitioners is in violation of the Rules therein. 3. The submission of learned Additional Government Advocate is that in view of the withdrawal of the demand notice, writ petitions do not survive for consideration. In view of the submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate that the notice issued under the Rules has been withdrawn, petitions are dismissed as having become infructuous. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance in four weeks.