Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

P.Balakrishna Shetty S/O Govinda ... vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 20 June, 2014

Author: B.S.Patil

Bench: B.S.Patil

                                               WP 203182/2014
                                1



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     GULBARGA BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2014

                            BEFORE

             THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL

                W.P.No.203182/2014 (EXCISE)

BETWEEN:

P.Balakrishna Shetty,
S/o Govinda Shetty,
Aged about 60 years,
Occ: Business,
R/o House No.9-1-674,
Nandi Colony,
Bidar - 585 401.                         ...PETITIONER

(By Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Adv.)

AND:

1. The State of Karnataka,
   Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
   Department of Excise,
   Vidhana Soudha,
   Bangalore - 560 001.

2. The Deputy Commissioner of Excise,
   Bidar District,
   Bidar - 585 401.                      ...RESPONDENTS

(By Sri Manvendra Reddy, GA)


      This Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to direct the 2nd respondent to
consider the application dated 09.06.2014 produced at
Annexure-E, etc.

      This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day,
the Court made the following:
                                                   WP 203182/2014
                                 2



                             ORDER

1. Learned Government Advocate submits that the prayer sought in the writ petition for issue of writ of mandamus to consider the application for renewal of license does not survive consideration, as the competent authority has passed the order rejecting the request vide endorsement dated 18.06.2014.

2. In the light of the aforesaid submission, this writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the order rejecting his request for renewal of license, in accordance with law.

Sd/-

JUDGE KK