Skip to content


Sri.Nagaraj. S/O. Govindaray Hittalmakki. Vs. the Stale of KarnatakA. by Its Principal Secretary. Finance, and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Karnataka High Court

Decided On

Case Number

WRIT PETITION NO.6624 OF 2009 (EXCISE).

Judge

Appellant

Sri.Nagaraj. S/O. Govindaray Hittalmakki.

Respondent

The Stale of KarnatakA. by Its Principal Secretary. Finance, and ors.

Appellant Advocate

Sri.Ashok.B.Pail. Adv.

Respondent Advocate

Sri.Ashok Haranahalli, Adv.

Excerpt:


[mr.justice huluvadi.g.ramesh, j.] this writ petition is filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying to quash the impugned notification at annexure-a dt.28.2.2009 issued by the first respondent and published in the karnataka gazette dt.28.2.2009 in parl-i......to sell on the basis of maximum retail selling price and the said notification is not applicable to cl-9 license holders. however, the petitioner, who is the holder of cl-9 license, is not supposed to sell the liquor (other than arrack) in retail.5. in view of the submission made, since the notification dated 28.02.2009 is not applicable to the cl-9 license holder the petitioner need not have any grievance, in the event, the said notification has been enforced for a particular period and if any loss has been suffered by the petitioner, he is at liberty to approach the respondent-authority seeking for appropriate orders, to consider the loss suffered by him and for needful action. accordingly, petition is disposed of.

Judgment:


1. In this petition, petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned notification at Annexure A tinted 28.02.2009 issued by the 1st respondent and published in the Karnataka Gazette dt.28.02.2009 in part I.

2. Petitioner is the holder of CL-9 license for the Excise Year 2008-2009 for running a Bar and Restaurant i.e., selling liquor (other than arrack) and also serving food. According to him, as per the earlier notification dated 29.06.2006, 20% profit margin was given to them, which has been reduced to 10% by applying the subsequent notification dated 28.02.2009 as per Annexure 'A' published in the official gazette, as a result of which, he suffered a loss for a period of four months. According to the petitioner, tie Government has suomoto issued the notification at Annexure "A' dated 28.02.2009 reducing the profit margin to 10% from 20% without consulting the distilleries, which is illegal.

3. Heard.

4. The learned Advocate General, on the instruction of the Deputy Commissioner (Legal), has submitted that the notification dated 28.02.2009 is only in respect of CL-2 license ladders who are retail sellers and have to sell on the basis of maximum retail selling price and the said notification is not applicable to CL-9 license holders. However, the petitioner, who is the holder of CL-9 license, is not supposed to sell the liquor (other than arrack) in retail.

5. In view of the submission made, since the Notification dated 28.02.2009 is not applicable to the CL-9 license holder the petitioner need not have any grievance, in the event, the said notification has been enforced for a particular period and if any loss has been suffered by the petitioner, he is at liberty to approach the respondent-authority seeking for appropriate orders, to consider the loss suffered by him and for needful action. Accordingly, petition is disposed of.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //