Karnataka High Court
Sri E Veeranna vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 2018
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
WRIT PETITION No.16805/2015 (EXCISE)
BETWEEN
SRI. E. VEERANNA
S/O OBALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT SREERAMANAGARA
BENKINAGAR
BEHIND INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
SAGAR ROAD
SHIVAMOGGA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI G.K. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU
2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER
IN KARNATAKA
2ND FLOOR, TTMC, 'A' BLOCK
BMTC BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR
BENGALURU- 560 027
Date of order:05.02.2018 in W.P.No.16805/2015
Sri. E. Veeranna vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors.
2/6
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
(REVENUE)
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
SHIVAMOGGA
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (EXCISE)
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
SHIVAMOGGA
5. SRI. PRASHANTH KUMAR
S/O S. SHIVAMURTHY
PARTNER
M/S. MALGUDI BAR AND
RESTAURANT
R/AT ARAHATHOLALU
BADRAVATHI TALUK
6. SRI. A.M. HARSHA
S/O S.MANJUNATH
PARTNER
M/S. MALGUDI BAR
AND RESTAURANT
R/AT ARAHATHOLALU
BADRAVATHI TALUK
7. D.S. RAMESH BABU
S/O LATE D.S.SRINIVASA SHETTY
PARTNER
M/S. MALGUDI BAR AND
RESTAURANT
R/AT 1ST FLOOR
BEHIND SUBBAIAH HOSPITAL
4TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK
BANSHANKARI LAYOUT
Date of order:05.02.2018 in W.P.No.16805/2015
Sri. E. Veeranna vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors.
3/6
HOSAMANE
SHIVAMOGGA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, ADDL.GOVT.ADVOCATE
R1 TO R4;
SRI. MOHAN BHAT, ADV., FOR R5 TO R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT AS PER
ANNEXURE - E, DATED 16.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE R-4
AND CONSEQUENTLY ENDORSEMNT DATED 02.04.2014
ISSUED BY R4 VIDE ANNEXURE - D AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Mr.G.K.Bhat, Adv. for Petitioner.
Mrs.Niloufer Akbar, Adv. for Respondents 1 to 4, Mr.Mohan Bhat, Adv. For R-5 to 7.
The petitioner Sri.E.Veeranna, s/o. Obalappa has filed this petition in this Court aggrieved by the Endorsement vide Annexure-E dated 16.12.2011 issued by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner (Excise), Shimoga District, Shimoga to the effect that on the signed application dated 28.11.2013 of the petitioner, consenting for transfer of C.L.9 licence in question for M/s.Malgudi Date of order:05.02.2018 in W.P.No.16805/2015 Sri. E. Veeranna vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors. 4/6 Bar and Restaurant, the same has been transferred in favour of a partnership firm comprising of private Respondents 5 to 7 Sri.Prashanth Kumar, Sri.A.M.Harsha and Sri.D.S.Ramesh Babu.
2. Against the said endorsement dated 16.12.2011, the present petitioner has filed this writ petition in this Court on 20th April 2015 after four years.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.G.K.Bhat has submitted that upon a forged application and fake challans of payment of transfer fees, the respondent-Excise Department has wrongly transferred the said C.L.9 licence, which was standing in the name of the present petitioner in respect of the private Respondents 5 to 7 and a competent Court is seized of the criminal complaint in the matter, therefore, the respondent-Excise Department should have held investigation in the matter and not renewed the licence in favour of the private Respondents 5 to 7-partnership firm.
Date of order:05.02.2018 in W.P.No.16805/2015 Sri. E. Veeranna vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors. 5/6
4. The submissions are controverted by learned counsel appearing for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the private respondents.
5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is satisfied that not only the present writ petition is belated, having been filed after four years approximately without explaining the reasons for such delay, but also in view of the very nature of allegations made that some forged or fake challans were produced before the Excise Department which is certainly a matter of enquiry and for which, a trial is already said to be pending, this Court cannot go into this question in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. Admittedly, as of now, no competent Court or authority has come to the conclusion about any falsity or forgery in the matter about the transfer of the C.L.9 licence and in view of this, the grievance raised by the petitioner about the impugned endorsement vide Annexure-E dated 16.12.2011 cannot be raised before Date of order:05.02.2018 in W.P.No.16805/2015 Sri. E. Veeranna vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors. 6/6 this Court in the present writ petition, as is sought to be done.
7. The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE bnv*