Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 135 (KAR)

Ramesh Bhimagouda Patil v. State of Karnataka

2016-02-08

N.K.PATIL, S.SUJATHA

body2016
JUDGMENT : N.K. Patil, J. 1. The petitioner/appellant, assailing the correctness of the order dated 13-9-2012, passed in Writ Petition No. 15851 of 2012 by the learned Single Judge has presented this appeal. The petition filed by the petitioner/appellant questioning the correctness of the endorsement dated 16-3-2012 issued by the respondent 4 and also seeking direction to the respondents to issue a licence in his favour for retail vend of beer as contemplated under the Karnataka Excise (Lease of the Right of Retail Vend of Beer) Rules, 1976, for the excise year 2011-2012 has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge, with liberty to the petitioner/appellant to renew his request for the said licence after the embargo is lifted by the State. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has presented this appeal. 2. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for appellant and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents. 3. During the pendency of this appeal, learned Counsel appearing for appellant has filed I.A. No. 2 of 2015 for production of 15 additional documents praying that he may be permitted to produce those documents to substantiate the prayer sought in the appeal on the ground that, respondents have been issuing the licence in Form 2 to other persons and certain circulars have been issued. Therefore, he submitted that the said application filed by him may be allowed and the writ appeal may be disposed of reserving liberty to the appellant to file fresh application for issue of Form 2 licence considering the similarly situated cases. Therefore, he submitted that it would be suffice for the appellant if appropriate direction is issued to the respondents to consider his fresh application to be filed by him for the coming excise year which commences from 1st July, 2016 and all the contentions urged in this appeal may be left open. 4. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents submitted that respondents have filed a detailed objection opposing to consider the relief sought in LA. No. 2 of 2015 filed by the appellant for additional documents, on the ground that, the requests of 14 similarly situated persons have been considered and permanent licence in Form 2 have been issued in their favour and that the case of the appellant is not considered is not correct. No. 2 of 2015 filed by the appellant for additional documents, on the ground that, the requests of 14 similarly situated persons have been considered and permanent licence in Form 2 have been issued in their favour and that the case of the appellant is not considered is not correct. In fact, those 14 persons shown were holding CL-9 licence and therefore, they are entitled for considering their case as per Rule 5 of Excise Rules. Therefore, he submitted that relief sought in the said application cannot be considered by this Court. However, he submitted that in the event, if the appellant files a fresh application seeking permission for granting licence in Form 2 for retail vend of beer as contemplated under the Karnataka Excise (Lease of Retail Vend of Beer) for the coming excise year, the same would be considered in accordance with law. 5. In the light of the submission made by learned Counsel appearing for both the parties and having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of demerits of this case, it would suffice for this Court to dispose of the appeal with appropriate direction to the parties to meet the ends of justice and to safeguard the interest of appellant as well as respondents. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant is disposed of, as follows:- The appellant herein is permitted to file fresh application for issue of licence in Form 2 for retail vend of beer as contemplated under the Karnataka Excise (Lease of Retail Vend of Beer) for the excise year 2016-2017 which commences from 1st July, 2016, before the expiry of this excise year. If such an application is filed by the appellant, the respondents-authorities are directed to receive and consider the same in accordance with law, and dispose of the same after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant as expeditiously as possible and without being prejudiced by the observation made in the order impugned dated 13-9-2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 15851 of 2012. In view of the disposal of the main appeal, the relief sought by the appellant in LA. No. 2 of 2015 does not survive for consideration. Hence, it is dismissed as having become infructuous.