Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1009 (KAR)

P. K. Govinda v. K. Sampoorna Pandiyan

2022-08-02

ALOK ARADHE, S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

body2022
JUDGMENT VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., - These intra court appeals are filed challenging the common order dtd. 11/3/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.14282/2021 and W.P.No.14335/2021. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. 3. Brief facts that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of these appeals are: The appellant and respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the children of late P.Krishnaswamy Naidu, who was holding two CL-9 licenses during his lifetime. P.Krishnaswamy Naidu died on 3/3/2021 leaving behind four sons and four daughters as his legal heirs. The appellant herein who is the eldest son of late P.Krishnaswamy Naidu filed an application before respondent No.6 for transfer of CL- 9 licenses, which were held by P.Krishnaswamy Naidu contending that late P.Krishnaswamy Naidu had executed a registered Will dtd. 16/7/2014 in his favour bequeathing the rights in respect of two CL-9 licenses in his favour. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 had opposed the said application disputing the genuineness of the Will and though respondent No.6 had issued prior approval for transfer of licenses in favour of the appellant on certain terms and conditions, respondent No.7 without taking the same into consideration had proceeded to transfer the licenses in favour of the appellant in exercise of his power under Sec. 17-A of the Karnataka Excise Licence (General Condition), Rules 1967. Respondent no.7 had passed two separate orders dtd. 17/5/2021 and 7/5/2021. Being aggrieved by the said orders and the orders dtd. 13/5/2021 and 3/5/2021 passed by respondent No.6 vide which prior approval was given for transfer of licenses in favour of the appellant, respondent Nos.1 to 5 had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.14282/2021 and W.P.No.14335/2021, respectively. The said writ petitions were clubbed, heard together and disposed of by a common order by the learned Single Judge and being aggrieved by the same, the appellant, who was respondent No.3 in the aforesaid two writ petitions is before this Court in these appeals. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Will executed by late Krishnaswamy Naidu is a registered Will, and therefore, genuineness of the same cannot be disputed. He submits that the appellant will be put to serious hardship, if the licenses are not transferred and renewed in his name and the State would also loose its revenue. 5. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Will executed by late Krishnaswamy Naidu is a registered Will, and therefore, genuineness of the same cannot be disputed. He submits that the appellant will be put to serious hardship, if the licenses are not transferred and renewed in his name and the State would also loose its revenue. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 submits that the authorities under the Excise Act cannot transfer the licenses on the basis of a Will, which is in dispute. He submits that respondent Nos.1 to 5 have already approached the competent Civil Court by filing a comprehensive suit for partition and other ancillary reliefs. He submits that the learned Single Judge taking into consideration that the execution of the Will is in dispute, has rightly relegated the parties to the Civil Court to resolve their dispute. 6. We have carefully considered the arguments addressed by both sides and also perused the material available on record. 7. Undisputedly, the appellant and respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the children of late Krishnaswamy Naidu, who was the holder of CL-9 licenses. The appellant has claimed absolute right over the said licenses and has sought for transfer of the said licenses into his name based on a registered Will allegedly executed by late Sri Krishnaswamy Naidu in his favour. However, execution of the said Will has been disputed by respondent Nos.1 to 5. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 have raised objection before respondent Nos.6 and 7 for transferring of CL-9 licenses in favour of the appellant herein and they have disputed the genuineness of the Will. Inspite of the same, respondent No.7 has passed the order for transfer of CL- 9 licenses in favour of the appellant. 8. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration that the execution of the Will in favour of the appellant was in dispute has held that the licenses, which stood in the name of late Krishnaswamy Naidu cannot be transferred in favour of either of the parties, who claim for transfer of the licenses, unless their rights are adjudicated before a competent Civil Court. It is under these circumstances, the learned Single Judge has observed that till the contesting private parties get their dispute resolved between themselves, the application seeking for transfer of licenses is required to be kept in abeyance and he has accordingly proceeded to quash the order passed by respondent Nos.6 & 7, which were impugned in the writ petitions, wherein CL-9 licenses were ordered to be transferred in favour of the appellant. 9. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said order passed by the learned Single Judge. Since the parties are already before the competent Civil Court, it is for them to adjudicate or resolve their dispute and thereafter seek necessary reliefs before respondent Nos.6 and 7 as observed by the learned single Judge. Under these circumstances we do not find any good ground to entertain the appeals, accordingly, the same are dismissed.