M. Venkataramaiah and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
(a) karnataka excise act, 1965 (karnataka act no. 21 of 1966) - section 3 -- permits are held to be issued to whole-sale dealers to sell within the specified area only; hence retailers from bangalore rural district cannot purchase from bangalore urban district. ; (b) karnataka excise (sale of indian & foreign liquors) rules, 1968 - rule 4 (2) (iv) as amended in 1988 empowering licensing authority permit whole sale dealers to sell more than one district -- hence outside, retailers can purchase liquor despite commissioner's oral instructions if any, to the contrary. - karnataka minor mineral concessions rules, 1994 rule 43:[p.d. dinakaran, c.j. & v.g. sabhahit,j] unauthorised transporting of sand through ship to foreign country deputy director of department of mines and geology issuing notice on permit holder-company ordered detention of ship containing unauthorisedly loaded cargo till investigations are completed challenge to - held, records clearly show that no transport permit has been obtained for transporting sand to the port for exporting the same. the sane has already been loaded into the ship as consignment for export to maldives. action is clearly in violation of rule 43 of the karnataka minor mineral concession rules. order of deputy director does not suffer from any error or illegality. if sand loaded into the ship is unloaded, the vessel may be permitted to leave the port. investigation may continue. - 2. their grievance is that though keeping in view the statutory provisions contained under the rules and the conditions of their licences they are entitled to purchase liquor from wholesalers having their place of business in bangalore urban district who have been granted licences for bangalore rural district as well, pursuant to some oral instructions issued by the respondent excise commissioner, the subordinate authorities are obstructing them from doing so by refusing to grant permits to transport liquor from the licensed premises of the said wholesalers to that of the petitioners. 5. in the said background, now it needs to be ascertained whether the petitioners are entitled to purchase indian made liquor from wholesalers having their place of business in bangalore urban district as well. keeping in view the said option given to the applicants, appropriate amendment was carried out in the cl-1, as well by notification gsr 152 dated 24.6.1988 thereby authorising the licensing authority to grant wholesale licence to an applicant for carrying on business in more than one district. 7. in the present cases, it has been brought on record that some of the wholesalers of bangalore urban 'district have been granted licences to effect sale in bangalore rural district as well.orderg.c. bharuka, j.in wp no. 45165 of 1995 with wp 45342 of 1995; wp no. 39284-307 of 1995; wp nos. 1652 & 1653 of 1996; wp nos. 39988 to 40024 of 1993; wp nos. 40559-573 of 1995; wp nos. 459 of 1996; wp nos. 40685 to 40692 of 1995; wp nos. 40741-42 of 1995; wp nos. 40882-887 of 1995; wp no. 41089 of 1,995; wp nos. 41329-333 of 1995; wp nos. 41337 to 342 of 1995; wp nos. 41566-571 of 1995; wp nos. 41906-927 of 1995; wp no. 42361 of 1995; wp nos. 42567-569 of 1995; wp no. 42659-671 of 1995; wp nos. 42702-714 of 1995; wp nos. 42884-897 of 1995; wp nos. 43358 of 1995; wp nos. 43394-396 of 1995; wp nos. 44214-216 of 1995; wp no. 44524 of 1995; wp no. 44664 of 1995.1. petitioners are retail vendors in indian liquor holding licences either in form cl - 2 or cl - 9 as prescribed under the karnataka excise (sale of indian and foreign liquors) rules, 1968 (hereinafter in short, 'the rules') having their licensed premises situated in bangalore rural district.2. their grievance is that though keeping in view the statutory provisions contained under the rules and the conditions of their licences they are entitled to purchase liquor from wholesalers having their place of business in bangalore urban district who have been granted licences for bangalore rural district as well, pursuant to some oral instructions issued by the respondent excise commissioner, the subordinate authorities are obstructing them from doing so by refusing to grant permits to transport liquor from the licensed premises of the said wholesalers to that of the petitioners.3. under the standing circular no. 141 dated 19.3.1988 issued by the commissioner of excise pursuant to his powers under section 3 of the karnataka excise act ('the act', for short) it was inter alia directed that no retailer shall be issued permits to obtain any stock of liquor from outside the district. this standing order came to be challenged in various writ petitions filed in this court. but ultimately the same was held to be valid as is evident from the reported case of bhagyalakshmi wine stores and anr. v. state of karnataka and ors., 1989(3) klj (suppl) 326. it was held by this court that since as per condition no. 2 of his licence in cl - 1, a wholesaler can sell liquor only within the area specified in his licence, it necessarily follows that a retailer of the said district only can purchase liquor from such a wholesaler.4. it appears that the excise commissioner considering some difficulties on the part of the retail licensees of the bangalore rural district, issued a corrigendum dated 9th may 1988 (annexure - c in writ petition nos. 39284 to 39307 of 1995) providing therein that the retail licensees in bangalore rural district may obtain their requirements from wholesalers located in bangalore urban district. this instruction stands till date.5. in the said background, now it needs to be ascertained whether the petitioners are entitled to purchase indian made liquor from wholesalers having their place of business in bangalore urban district as well.6. rule 4 of the rules provides for making of applications for grant of licences. clause (iv) of rule 4(2) of the said rules which was substituted by notification no. hd 22 pes 87 (iii) dated 9.11.1987 enables the applicant to apply for grant of licence for sale of liquor in more than one district. keeping in view the said option given to the applicants, appropriate amendment was carried out in the cl-1, as well by notification gsr 152 dated 24.6.1988 thereby authorising the licensing authority to grant wholesale licence to an applicant for carrying on business in more than one district. therefore rule 4(2)(iv) of the rules read with condition no. 2 of the wholesale licence cl - 1 empowers the licensing authority to grant licence to a wholesaler for effecting sale in more than one district.7. in the present cases, it has been brought on record that some of the wholesalers of bangalore urban 'district have been granted licences to effect sale in bangalore rural district as well. in that view of the matter, as per the law laid down by this court in the case of bhagyalakshmi wine stores (supra), the present petitioners are entitled to make purchases from the said wholesale dealers. since no written instruction issued by the excise commissioner which can be said to be contrary to the said legal position has been brought on record, it is not necessary for me to enter into the question whether the commissioner pursuant to his powers under section 3 of the act can curtail the statutory rights of the retailers to make their purchases from the wholesalers who have been accorded licences for sale in their district.8. in the said view of the matter, it has further to be held that since purchases in question of the petitioners will be in accordance with law, respondents are statutorily bound to grant them permits for transportation of the purchased stock of liquor to their licensed premises in terms of rule 4 of the karnataka excise (possession, transport, import and export of intoxicants) rules 1967, provided all the other terms for issuance of such permits as contemplated under law are complied with.9. with the said observations and directions, these writ petitions are allowed. no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

G.C. Bharuka, J.

In WP No. 45165 of 1995 with WP 45342 of 1995; WP No. 39284-307 of 1995; WP Nos. 1652 & 1653 of 1996; WP Nos. 39988 to 40024 of 1993; WP Nos. 40559-573 of 1995; WP Nos. 459 of 1996; WP Nos. 40685 to 40692 of 1995; WP Nos. 40741-42 of 1995; WP Nos. 40882-887 of 1995; WP No. 41089 of 1,995; WP Nos. 41329-333 of 1995; WP Nos. 41337 to 342 of 1995; WP Nos. 41566-571 of 1995; WP Nos. 41906-927 of 1995; WP No. 42361 of 1995; WP Nos. 42567-569 of 1995; WP No. 42659-671 of 1995; WP Nos. 42702-714 of 1995; WP Nos. 42884-897 of 1995; WP Nos. 43358 of 1995; WP Nos. 43394-396 of 1995; WP Nos. 44214-216 of 1995; WP No. 44524 of 1995; WP No. 44664 of 1995.

1. Petitioners are retail vendors in Indian liquor holding licences either in Form CL - 2 or CL - 9 as prescribed under the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter in short, 'the Rules') having their licensed premises situated in Bangalore Rural District.

2. Their grievance is that though keeping in view the statutory provisions contained under the Rules and the conditions of their licences they are entitled to purchase liquor from wholesalers having their place of business in Bangalore Urban District who have been granted Licences for Bangalore Rural District as well, pursuant to some oral instructions issued by the respondent Excise Commissioner, the subordinate authorities are obstructing them from doing so by refusing to grant permits to transport liquor from the licensed premises of the said wholesalers to that of the petitioners.

3. Under the Standing Circular No. 141 dated 19.3.1988 issued by the Commissioner of Excise pursuant to his powers under Section 3 of the Karnataka Excise Act ('the Act', for short) it was inter alia directed that no retailer shall be issued permits to obtain any stock of liquor from outside the District. This standing order came to be challenged in various Writ Petitions filed in this Court. But ultimately the same was held to be valid as is evident from the reported case of BHAGYALAKSHMI WINE STORES AND ANR. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS., 1989(3) KLJ (SUPPL) 326. It was held by this Court that since as per Condition No. 2 of his Licence in CL - 1, a wholesaler can sell liquor only within the area specified in his licence, it necessarily follows that a retailer of the said District only can purchase liquor from such a wholesaler.

4. It appears that the Excise Commissioner considering some difficulties on the part of the retail licensees of the Bangalore Rural District, issued a corrigendum dated 9th May 1988 (Annexure - C in Writ Petition Nos. 39284 to 39307 of 1995) providing therein that the retail licensees in Bangalore Rural District may obtain their requirements from wholesalers located in Bangalore Urban District. This instruction stands till date.

5. In the said background, now it needs to be ascertained whether the petitioners are entitled to purchase Indian made liquor from wholesalers having their place of business in Bangalore Urban District as well.

6. Rule 4 of the Rules provides for making of applications for grant of licences. Clause (iv) of Rule 4(2) of the said Rules which was substituted by Notification No. HD 22 PES 87 (iii) dated 9.11.1987 enables the applicant to apply for grant of licence for sale of liquor in more than one district. Keeping in view the said option given to the applicants, appropriate amendment was carried out in the CL-1, as well by Notification GSR 152 dated 24.6.1988 thereby authorising the licensing authority to grant wholesale licence to an applicant for carrying on business in more than one district. Therefore Rule 4(2)(iv) of the Rules read with Condition No. 2 of the wholesale licence CL - 1 empowers the licensing authority to grant licence to a wholesaler for effecting sale in more than one district.

7. In the present cases, it has been brought on record that some of the wholesalers of Bangalore Urban 'District have been granted licences to effect sale in Bangalore Rural District as well. In that view of the matter, as per the law laid down by this Court in the case of Bhagyalakshmi Wine Stores (supra), the present petitioners are entitled to make purchases from the said wholesale dealers. Since no written instruction issued by the Excise Commissioner which can be said to be contrary to the said legal position has been brought on record, it is not necessary for me to enter into the question whether the Commissioner pursuant to his powers under Section 3 of the Act can curtail the statutory rights of the retailers to make their purchases from the wholesalers who have been accorded licences for sale in their District.

8. In the said view of the matter, it has further to be held that since purchases in question of the petitioners will be in accordance with law, respondents are statutorily bound to grant them permits for transportation of the purchased stock of liquor to their licensed premises in terms of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Excise (Possession, Transport, Import and Export of Intoxicants) Rules 1967, provided all the other terms for issuance of such permits as contemplated under law are complied with.

9. With the said observations and directions, these Writ Petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.