Ajit S/O Devappa Hukkeri v. The State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

WRIT APPEAL NO.100720 OF 2025 (EXCISE) BETWEEN:

AJIT, S/O DEVAPPA HUKKERI, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O KUDACHI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI 511311. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, BENGALURU 560001.

¶2THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, TTMC 'A' BLOCK, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU 560027.

¶3THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI 590001.

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.11 10:43:03 +0530 NC:(2025:KHC-D:17169-DB( WA(No.(100720(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( (

4., THE,DEPUTY,COMMISSIONER,, ,,OF,EXCISE,, BELAGAVI,NORTH,DISTRICT,,, CHIKKODI,,AT.,CHIKKODI,,, TQ.,CHIKKODI,,, DIST.,BELAGAVI,591201., ,

5., THE,DEPUTY,SUPERINTENDENT,, ,,OF,EXCISE,, ATHANI,,SUB-DIVISION,,, ATHANI,,AT.,ATHANI,,, TQ.,ATHANI,,, DIST.,BELAGAVI,591304., ,

6., THE,INSPECTOR,OF,EXCISE,, RAIBAG,RANGE,,, RAIBAG,,AT.,RAIBAG,,, TQ.,RAIBAG,,, DIST.,BELAGAVI,591317., ,

7., M/S,RATNA,ENTERPRISES,, R/BY,ITS,PARTNER,,, SUDHAKAR,,, S/O,CHANDRAKANT,SALIYAN,,, NO.1691,,KUDACHI,(RURAL),,, TQ.,RAIBAG,,, DIST.,BELAGAVI,591317., …RESPONDENTS, , (BY,SRI.,G.K.,HIREGOUDAR,,PRL.,GOVT.,ADVOCATE,FOR,R1-R6;, ,,,,,,SRI.,SADIQ,N.,GOODWALA,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R7), , , THIS, WRIT, APPEAL, IS, FILED, UNDER, SECTION, 4, OF, KARNATAKA, HIGH, COURT, ACT,, 1961,, PRAYING, TO, CALL, FOR, RECORDS, AND, TO, SET-ASIDE, THE, ORDER, DATED, 17/10/2025, IN, W.P.NO.101875/2025, PASSED, BY, THE, LEARNED, SINGLE, JUDGE, AND, ALLOW, THE, WRIT, PETITION, IN, ITS, ENTIRETY, BY, ALLOWING, THIS, WRIT, APPEAL, IN, THE, INTEREST, OF, JUSTICE, AND,EQUITY., ,

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)

Sri. G.K.Hiregoudar, learned Principal Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents No.1 to 6.

¶2Sri. Sadiq N.Goodwala, learned counsel, having entered caveat, accepts notice for respondent No.7.

¶3Heard Sri. Shivaraj P.Mudhol, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsels for the respondents. Perused the entire writ appeal papers.

¶4The appellant/petitioner was before the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.101875/2025 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning Annexure-P, order dated

05.03.2025 prior approval for grant of CL-7 licence for the year 2024-25. The said challenge was dismissed under the impugned

order dated 17.10.2025. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge, at paragraph 9 of the impugned order, has observed as follows:

"9. Assuming that there is any violation by respondent No.7, the petitioner may have to file the Public Interest Litigation as the petitioner is not directly affected by the proposed business of respondent No.7, which is said to be commencing, if permission granted at a distance of more than 500 metres from the petitioner's residence."

¶5Learned counsel Sri. Shivaraj P.Mudhol for the appellant would submit that subsequently, a fresh order dated

26.11.2025 prior approval for grant of CL-7 licence for the year 2024-25 and CL-7 licence dated 28.11.2025 is issued to respondent No.7, and to challenge those orders, the observation of the learned Single Judge, at paragraph No.9, would come in the way of the appellant. In that, he submits that the appellant is bringing to the notice of the authorities, the violation of Karnataka Municipalities Act and other provisions of law. He submits that, when the appellant-petitioner points out violation of certain law for issuance of CL – 7 licence, it would not be a

public interest litigation. Thus, he would pray for setting aside the observation made in paragraph 9 of the impugned order.

¶6Per contra, Sri. G.K.Hiregoudar, learned Principal Government Advocate would submit that the appellant/petitioner has private interest nor is a rival trader; the appellant/petitioner is pointing out certain violations as a general public and as such, the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that, if there is any violation by respondent No.7, it is open for the petitioner to file a public interest litigation. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ appeal.

¶7Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ appeal papers, we are of the considered opinion that no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, more particularly, the observation made vide paragraph No.9 of the impugned order.

¶8As noticed, the appellant/petitioner has no private interest nor is a rival trader. The allegation of the appellant is that respondent No.7 has obtained CL–7 licence to an

unauthorized building which is built in violation of the municipal laws. The said building is said to be within the jurisdiction of the Town Municipal Council, Kudachi. The appellant/petitioner is pointing out certain violation in issuance of licence, as a general public. In that view of the matter, the observation of the learned Single Judge is proper and correct, and the impugned order of the learned Single Judge does not warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands rejected.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of as not surviving for consideration.

Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE

KMS, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 27