JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners, existing CL-2 and CL-9 licencees in Horakadevarapura village, are aggrieved by the impugned order Annexure-E dated 17.08.2017 passed by the Respondent-Commissioner of Excise directing the shifting of a CL-11C licence owned by the Government company namely MSIL, Bangalore, for the year 2017-18 in property No.400, H.D. Pura village (instead of Chitrahalli village), Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District, under the limits of Holalkere Legislative Assembly Constituency. 2. The existing licencees, the present petitioners aggrieved by the said incoming fresh competition have filed this petition before this Court with the following prayers:- "(i) The order bearing No. ECI/19/MSIL/Chitradurga District/2017 dated 17-08-2017 issued by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-E to the writ petition. (ii) Grant such other the relief deems fit under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity". 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Government company cannot have a extra privilege and as far as the trade of liquor is concerned, that being no fundamental right of the State Government, the MSIL should be treated at par with the present petitioners, who are holding CL-2 and CL-9 licences for the said village and therefore, additional licences cannot be given to MSIL, particularly by shifting of the same from Chitrahalli village to H.D. Pura village and the same is unsustainable and the said order of the Commissioner, therefore, deserves to be quashed by this Court. 4. On the other hand, learned AGA for the Excise Department has submitted that the limit to be fixed under Rule 12 of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign liquors) Rules, 1968, does not apply to the licences issued under Rule 11C of the said Rules which applies only in the case of Government companies and therefore, the said licence given to MSIL besides the existing licences of the two petitioners herein cannot be validly assailed by the petitioners. 5. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that the present petitions have no force and are liable to be dismissed. 6. Rule 3(11-C) of the Karnataka Excise Rules, 1968, is quoted below for ready reference:- 3. 5. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that the present petitions have no force and are liable to be dismissed. 6. Rule 3(11-C) of the Karnataka Excise Rules, 1968, is quoted below for ready reference:- 3. Licences (11-C) Retail shop licence issued to Government Companies.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 12, a licence under this clause in Form CL(11-C) shall be granted by the Deputy Commissioner, only to such companies owned or controlled by the State Government and specified by the Government, for possession and sale of liquor in retail shops with a condition that such shops shall be exclusively maintained by them and shall not be transferred and sub-leased to others. Consumption of liquor within the licensed premised shall not be allowed under this category of licences". 7. A bare perusal of the said provision indicates that the said provision with a non-obstante clause has an overriding effect and will operate notwithstanding Rule 12 of the said Rules, 1968. Even though, no such order under Rule 12 fixing the limit, as the number of licences passed by the Commissioner of Excise is placed on the record of the Court fixing any limit of the excise licence for the said H.D. Pura village but that also is of no consequence. Even if such an order was to be there, because 11C licence given to the Government Undertaking MSIL would have the preference and would operate notwithstanding such limit of Rule 12 of the 1968 Rules. 8. The said Government Company MSIL appears to have been granted additional 900 licences in the recent past and to procure business, naturally, all such 900 licences have to be allotted suitable places to carry on their business. The State Government has carved out a special provision under Rule 11C for the said Government Company overriding the usual provisions of prescribing limit of excise licences envisaged under Rule 12 of the said Rules. There is no challenge laid to this provision of Rule 11C before this Court. It is already said to have been upheld by this Court in B.Martin & Others vs. State of Karnataka & Others [2011(3) Kar.L.J.16]. The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted below for ready reference:- "6. There is no challenge laid to this provision of Rule 11C before this Court. It is already said to have been upheld by this Court in B.Martin & Others vs. State of Karnataka & Others [2011(3) Kar.L.J.16]. The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted below for ready reference:- "6. In view of the above legal position and also, since it is settled in various other cases that sale of liquor is neither a fundamental right nor a question of arbitrariness which can be questioned, and also when the State intends to promote business through organized sectors namely, the companies owned by the State, the granting of licences to the MSIL cannot be held to be arbitrary and the rule enabling grant of some more licences in the interest of public health or general order and thereby, grant of some more CL-2 licences through MSIL, cannot be held to be bad. 9. It is stated that one of the purpose of regulation is to raise revenue to the State by granting licences to the State owned companies and while exercising monopoly or privilege, the State felt it proper to give more number of licences to the State owned company to regulate business in liquor. Although a policy was brought in during 2003 to restrict issuance of CL-2 and CL-9 licences, however, it shall not bar the issuance of licences in favour of the State owned companies and the business carried on by the State is to earn revenue for the State as limited revenue would be generated in case of private CL-2 or CL-9 licence holders since the margin profit is fixed. For the purpose of generating revenue, when the State has taken a decision to give more number of Cl-2 licences to the State owned companies, that cannot be said either discriminatory or arbitrary and no quota could be fixed for issuance of licences to the Government owned companies by the Commissioner of Excise and it applies only to private individuals.” 9. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the clear opinion that the present impugned order passed by the Respondent-Commissioner of Excise cannot be successfully assailed by the petitioners and therefore, the present writ petitions are devoid of merit and are liable to be dismissed and the same are accordingly dismissed. No costs.