Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Narayana vs State of Karnataka and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Sep 29, 1999

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/381891

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/381891
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: R.V. Raveendran, J.
Decided On: Sep 29, 1999
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 32669 of 1999
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MINES AND MINERALS (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT (67 OF 1957) Section 15 & Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969, Rule 2: [P.D. Dinakaran, CJ, & V.G. Sabhahit, J] Mining Deduction of Royalty charges Petitioner-Civil contractor carrying on civil works of Government Department and local bodies Petiti...

Key legal issue: Excise
Acts & sections: Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 - Sections 71; Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968 - Rules 7 and 8

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Narayana

Advocate Sri T.S. Surya Prakash, Adv.

Respondent

State of Karnataka and Others

Advocate Sri K.M. Shivayogiswamy, Government Pleader

Legal References

Acts: Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 - Sections 71; Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968 - Rules 7 and 8
Reported In: 2000(5)KarLJ30

Excerpt

- mines and minerals (regulation and development) act (67 of 1957) section 15 & karnataka minor mineral concession rules, 1969, rule 2: [p.d. dinakaran, cj, & v.g. sabhahit, j] mining deduction of royalty charges petitioner-civil contractor carrying on civil works of government department and local bodies petitioner purchasing materials from private sources, also does not own any quarries held, he is not liable to pay royalty. department cannot recover or deduct any royalty from bills of contractor and if any amount has been deducted department will be bound to refund the same......for the years 1989-90 to 1997-98 is violative of rule 8 of the karnataka excise (sale of indian and foreign liquors) rules, 1968. petitioner has also sought a direction to respondents to pay damages of rs. 2.00 lakhs for the financial loss caused to him.2. the learned government pleader appearing for the respondents stated that no demand has been made either orally or otherwise for payment of licence fee for the years 1989-90 to 1997-98 or for any other period.3. this court has held in the case of state of karnataka v patrick d'souza, that having regard to the scheme of the karnataka excise act and the rules thereunder there is no question of renewal of licence and, therefore, when an application for licence is considered for a particular year, the department cannot recover licence fee for the earlier years. in view of it, respondents 2 and 3 will have to consider the petitioner's application for grant of licence for the year 1999-2000 without demanding any amount as licence fee for the previous years when petitioner did not seek licence.4. the learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner does not press the claim for damages. hence, the said prayer is rejected.5. petition is, therefore, disposed of directing respondents 2 and 3 to consider in accordance with law and dispose of the petitioner's application for grant of a cl-2 licence for the year 1999-2000 without insisting or requiring payment of licence fee for the earlier periods, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of this order.6. sri k.m. shivayogiswamy, learned government pleader, is permitted to file his memo of appearance within six weeks.

Full Judgment

ORDER

R.V. Raveendran, J.

1. Petitioner claims that he held a CL-2 licence between 1987 and 1989. Thereafter the licence was not renewed. The petitioner claims to have made an application for a fresh licence on 7-8-1998 for the excise year 1998-99. That was not granted. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner claims to have filed W.P. No. 6079 of 1999 seeking a direction to the respondents therein to issue a challan to enable the petitioner to pay licence fee forthe year 1998-99 without insisting upon payment of licence fee for the excise years 1989-90 to 1997-98. The said petition was disposed of by order dated 16-4-1999 directing the Department to pass appropriate orders. Subsequently, the petitioner made an application for the excise year 1999-2000. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are insisting upon payment of the licence fee for the excise years 1989-90 to 1997-98 as a condition precedent for considering the application for grant of licence for the year 1999-2000. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to consider and grant CL-2 licence for the year 1999-2000 [1-7-1999 to 30-6-2000]. He has also sought a declaration that the oral demand by third respondent for payment of licence fee for the years 1989-90 to 1997-98 is violative of Rule 8 of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968. Petitioner has also sought a direction to respondents to pay damages of Rs. 2.00 lakhs for the financial loss caused to him.

2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents stated that no demand has been made either orally or otherwise for payment of licence fee for the years 1989-90 to 1997-98 or for any other period.

3. This Court has held in the case of State of Karnataka v Patrick D'Souza, that having regard to the scheme of the Karnataka Excise Act and the Rules thereunder there is no question of renewal of licence and, therefore, when an application for licence is considered for a particular year, the Department cannot recover licence fee for the earlier years. In view of it, respondents 2 and 3 will have to consider the petitioner's application for grant of licence for the year 1999-2000 without demanding any amount as licence fee for the previous years when petitioner did not seek licence.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner does not press the claim for damages. Hence, the said prayer is rejected.

5. Petition is, therefore, disposed of directing respondents 2 and 3 to consider in accordance with law and dispose of the petitioner's application for grant of a CL-2 licence for the year 1999-2000 without insisting or requiring payment of licence fee for the earlier periods, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of this order.

6. Sri K.M. Shivayogiswamy, learned Government Pleader, is permitted to file his Memo of Appearance within six weeks.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 1999 Same Parties Narayana vs State of Karnataka and Others Same Subject Excise Same Judge R.V. Raveendran, J. Acts & Sections Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 - Sections 71; Karnataka Excise (S...

Excise