Karnataka High Court
M/S Malaji Wine Centre vs State Of Karnataka on 17 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14142
WP No. 106556 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 106556 OF 2025 (EXCISE)
BETWEEN:
M/S. MALAJI WINE CENTRE,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, CL-2 LICENSEE,
VPC NO.917 (MANIHAL) SUREBAN,
RAMDURG TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT,
REP/BY ITS PARTNER MOHANSA,
BHIMASA MALJI, AGE. 67 YEARS.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF EXCISE DEPARTMENT,
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
O/O. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
2ND FLOOR, TTMC "A" BLOCK,
BMTC COMPLEX, SHANTHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 027.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14142
WP No. 106556 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
O/O. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
BELAGAVI SOUTH, BELAGAVI-590 001.
4. RAJENDRA BHIMASA MALJI
S/O BHIMASA MALJI,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
NO.3, RAMPUR PETH, RAMDURG,
BELAGAVI-591 123.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. PRASHANT KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT/ORDER NO.DCE/BGM/Dooru/R
A.Du/2023-24/249, DATED 12-08-2025, ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DY. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, SOUTH
BELAGAVI, AS PER ANNEXURE-A AS ILLEGAL AND
UNENFORCEABLE IN LAW AND ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE
OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO RENEW
THE CL-2 LICENCE OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE EXCISE YEAR
2025-26 UNDER RULE 5-A OF THE KARNATAKA EXCISE (SALE OF
INDIAN AND FOREIGN LIQUORS) RULES 1968.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14142
WP No. 106556 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 3 as well as learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondent No.4.
2. This petition is filed assailing the order passed by respondent No.3 refusing to renew the license issued in favour of the partnership firm by name M/s Malaji Wine Centre. Petitioner is claiming to be 50% partner in the said firm. Respondent No.4 is also claiming to be 50% partner. The application is rejected on the premise that 50% partner i.e. respondent No.4 has objected for renewal application filed by the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order is passed without assigning any valid reasons and order is not an appealable order as contended by the learned counsel respondent No.4.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 would submit that under Section 61 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, the order is appealable.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14142 WP No. 106556 of 2025 HC-KAR
5. Learned Government Advocate would also submit that the petitioner has not disclosed all the details in the self- declaration form which is required to be furnished along with the application for renewal.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the observations made in unnumbered paragraph-2 of the second page of the impugned order is incorrect and no documents are produced to show that the cases are pending against the petitioner.
7. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.
8. As can be seen from the impugned order, it is noticed that the application is rejected on the premise that 4th respondent has filed objection. Merely because 4th respondent has filed objection, it cannot be said that the petitioner has no authority under the partnership deed to represent the partnership firm. Whether the petitioner has an authority to represent the partnership or not, is to be traced from the clauses in the partnership deed or resolutions, if any, passed by the -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14142 WP No. 106556 of 2025 HC-KAR partnership firm. The Deputy Commissioner of Excise has not taken this aspect into consideration.
9. Under these circumstances, impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner of Excise. Respondent No.3 to consider the application afresh. Respondent No.4 should be given an opportunity to participate in the proceeding. If the Deputy Commissioner of Excise is convinced in the terms of the partnership deed or any of the resolutions passed by the partnership firm or from the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act that the petitioner is also authorized to move the application for renewal, said application can be considered in accordance with law.
10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits or the contentions of either of the parties.
11. Since the matter is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, the authority shall also take into consideration the documents, if any, to be produced by the petitioner or respondent No.4 to verify as to whether the self- -6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14142 WP No. 106556 of 2025 HC-KAR declaration furnished by the petitioner is in compliance with the requirement of law.
12. With the aforesaid observations, petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CLK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 90