Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 134 (KAR)

Hanumanthappa v. State of Karnataka

2021-01-21

B.V.NAGARATHNA, M.G.UMA

body2021
ORDER : B.V. Nagarathna, J. 1. The petitioners have questioned the order dated 07/07/2020 Bearing No. EXE/IML/HiVa/CL-11(C)/75/2020-21 (Annexure-F), passed by respondent No. 4 - authority and they have sought direction to the respondents- authorities to consider their representations dated 30/07/2020 vide Annexures-G1 to G5 for recalling or revoking the order dated 07/07/2020. By said order dated 07/07/2020, respondent No. 4 in exercise of the power under Rule 23 of the Karnataka Excise License (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" for the sake of brevity) has directed respondent No. 6 - MSIL holder of CL-11(C) license to shift the liquor outlet from Khata No. 49 of Kodihalli Village to Khata No. 384/29 which is owned by one Basavaraju of the said village. 2. During the pendency of this writ petition, the State has filed the statement of objections and pursuant to order of this Court, respondent No. 4 - Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga, Sri. R. Nagashayana, has also filed his affidavit dated 11/12/2020 stating. that within a period of three months, there shall be permission taken for conversion of the agricultural land for non agricultural use in Khata No. 384/29 and further the undertaking to that effect has also been given by respondent No. 6 - MSIL stating that on conversion of the land from agricultural to non agricultural use, the activity of vending of liquor in the Khata bearing No. 384/29 of Kodihalli village shall be taken and till then, there shall be no vending of liquor in the said area. In fact, the affidavit have also been filed by the Managing Director of respondent No. 6, which we have perused. 3. We have heard Sri. V. Yogesh, learned Counsel for Sri. Virupakshaiah, for the petitioners, Smt. H. Vani, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Sri. V. Vedamurthy, learned Counsel for respondent No. 6 and perused the material on record. 4. The respondents-authorities have taken a decision to shift the liquor outlet, exercising the power under Rule 23 of the Rules. The petitioners herein are not against vending of liquor in the village. Strangely, they are questioning shifting of the liquor from one place to another place. 4. The respondents-authorities have taken a decision to shift the liquor outlet, exercising the power under Rule 23 of the Rules. The petitioners herein are not against vending of liquor in the village. Strangely, they are questioning shifting of the liquor from one place to another place. If a decision has been taken exercising the power under Rule 23 of the Rules, we do not think that such a decision could be called in question, that too, by way of public interest litigation. We really do not understand as to the real intention of the petitioners in questioning the shifting of liquor outlet from one place to another in the same village. We do not find any merit in the writ petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the petition, production of certified copy of Annexure-F is dispensed with. I.A. 1 of 2020 stands disposed.