Karnataka High Court
Sri Basavareddy V Lingadal vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2802
WP No. 100382 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 100382 OF 2026 (EXCISE)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. BASAVAREDDY V. LINGADAL,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED GOVERNMENT SERVANT,
R/O: HOUSE NO.42, 1ST CROSS,
OPP-BASAVAREDDY ITI COLLEGE,
SAMPIGENAGER, DHARWAD.
2. SRI. B.T. REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACTOR,
R/O: IIND MAIN, 1ST MAIN,
SAMPIGENAGAR, DHARWAD.
3. SRI. MAHALINGESHWAR B. KATODI,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE,
R/O: PLOT NO. 39, 1ST CROSS,
MANJANNA SAMPIGENAGAR, DHARWAD.
E
4. SRI. PRAVEEN ANGADI,
Digitally signed by
MANJANNA E AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH
OCC: GOVT. SERVANT,
Date: 2026.02.21 17:31:47
+0530 R/O: K H B COLONY, IIND CROSS,
NEAR CHAITANYA KALYANMANTAPPA,
SAMPIGENAGAR, DHARWAD.
5. SRI. MAKANDAR A K,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED EMPLOYEE,
R/O: IIND CROSS, K H B COLONY,
NEAR CHAITHANYA, KALYANMANTAPPA,
SAMPIGENAGAR, DHARWAD.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2802
WP No. 100382 of 2026
HC-KAR
6. SRI. RAJSHEKARGOUDA RUDRAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED EMPLOYEE,
R/O: PLOT NO. 5, SAROVER NAGAR,
K C PARK, KALEGRI, DHARWAD.
7. SRI. BASAYYA C PUJAR,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED EMPLOYEE,
R/O: PLOT NO. 15, SAROVER NAGAR,
K C PARK, KALAGERI, DHARWAD.
8. SRI. HEMANTH R. TAMADE,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: PLOT NO. 18, SAROVER NAGAR,
K C PARK, KALAGERI, DHARWAD.
9. GOMESH H TAMDE,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: PLOT NO 18, SAROVER NAGAR,
K C PARK, KALAGERI, DHARWAD.
10. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. KULKARNI
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: SHANTHINIKETHAN NAGAR,
KALAGERI, DHARWAD.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SUNIL S.DESAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE,
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU- 560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
DHARWAD, AT DHARWAD,
DIST: DHARWAD-580001.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2802
WP No. 100382 of 2026
HC-KAR
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE
DHARWAD-580001.
5. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF
EXCISE, DHARWAD SUB-DIVISION,
DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD-580001.
6. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR,
DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD-580001.
7. SRI. BALAKRISHNA S/O. YALLAPPA KALAL
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. DHARWAD, TQ: DHARWAD,
DIST: DHARWAD-580001.
8. THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR
SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION,
DHARWAD-580001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R6 AND R8;
SRI. SHIVARAJ P.MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT ORDER OR
DIRECTION, IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ORDER
BEARING NO. SC008/2025-2026/00179 DATED 12-01-2026 PASSED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-F, AS ILLEGAL, AND
ARBITRARY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2802
WP No. 100382 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners, who claim to be the residents of
Sampigenagar and adjoining locality of Dharwad, have filed
this writ petition calling in question the order dated
12.01.2026 passed by respondent No.3-Deputy
Commissioner of Excise, permitting shifting of CL-2 licence
of respondent No.7 to Survey No.19B, Basavanal Building,
Kelageri Road, Dharwad.
Brief facts.
2. The petitioners submitted representation
objecting to the proposed establishment/shifting of liquor
shop in the locality. Initially, endorsement was issued
stating that no application for shifting had been received.
Subsequently, an application for shifting was filed by
respondent No.7, petitioners claimed to have filed
objections opposing the same. Respondent No.3 passed
order dated 12.01.2026 permitting to shift the same.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2802
WP No. 100382 of 2026
HC-KAR
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
though objections were filed, no reasonable opportunity of
hearing was afforded. The impugned order does not clearly
reflect application of mind to their objections and the
inspection was not conducted in their presence. Rule 5
clause (2-A) of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General
Conditions) Rules, 1967 (‘Rules 1967’ for short) mandates
consideration of public convenience, morality, tranquility,
decency or safety. It is submitted that alternative remedy
under Section 61 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (‘Act
1965’ for short) is not an absolute bar when principles of
natural justice are violated.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent submits that the writ petition is not
maintainable in view of the statutory alternative remedy
under Section 61 of the Act. It is submitted that proper
inspection was conducted by the jurisdictional officers and
the proposed premises is commercial in nature, and no
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2802
WP No. 100382 of 2026
HC-KAR
objectionable institution exists within a prohibited distance.
It is submitted that Annexure-R10 is a detailed speaking
order, wherein objections have been considered and that
the Authority has exercised discretion in accordance with
Rule 5 of the Rules 1967.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7-
licence holder contends that the writ petition is not
maintainable in view of the statutory alternative remedy
available under Section 61 of the Act, and that the
petitioners ought to have approached the appellate
authority instead of invoking writ jurisdiction. The
petitioners lack locus standi to challenge the shifting of
licence, and it is contended that they do not reside within
the vicinity contemplated under Rule 5 of the Rules, 1967
and are therefore not ‘affected persons’. It is contended
that the proposed premises is situated in a commercial
area. The land has been converted for commercial use and
building permission has been granted. There are no
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2802
WP No. 100382 of 2026
HC-KAR
objectionable institutions within the prohibited distances
prescribed under Rule 5, and the competent authority
conducted inspection through the jurisdictional officer and
considered the inspection reports before granting
permission. It is further submitted that the online portal
displays, a system-generated shifting order. Detailed
reasoning order dated 12.01.2026 has been passed and
produced at Annexure-R10 along with the objections filed
by the respondent-State. It is therefore, contended that
there is no absence of reasons in the impugned order.
6. Learned counsel further contends that the online
order is generated under version – 2 of the E-Service Portal
and is in a prefixed format, which does not permit detailed
reasoning. Hence, a separate speaking order is required to
be issued. It is further contended that the authority has
exercised statutory discretion in accordance with Rule 5 and
Rule 5 (2-A), and public objections cannot operate as a veto
against a valid licence holder, whose statutory conditions
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2802
WP No. 100382 of 2026
HC-KAR
are satisfied and raising all these grounds, sought to
dismiss the writ petition.
7. In the rejoinder, the petitioners reiterate that
alternative remedy is not a bar in cases involving violation
of principles of natural justice. Annexure-R10 cannot cure
defects, if the impugned order does not itself reflect
consideration, and that the objections were not heard in
proper perspective and the discretion under Rule 5(2-A)
was not meaningfully exercised.
8. This Court has carefully considered the rival
submissions and perused the material on record.
9. This Court is conscious of the fact that Section 61
of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1961 provides for an
alternative remedy. However, it is well settled that
alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in cases involving:
i. Violation of principles of natural justice;
ii. Lack of jurisdiction; -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2802 WP No. 100382 of 2026 HC-KAR iii. Patent illegality.
10. In the present case, the petition has been
entertained in the light of the grievance, that the objections
were not duly considered and an opportunity was not
meaningfully afforded. From the record, it appears that
Annexure-R10 is produced as a speaking order explaining
the reasons behind granting permission. However, the
petitioners dispute effective consideration of their objection
and also dispute the absence of inspection in their presence.
In the matters of shifting of liquor licence, especially when
objections are raised by residents of the locality, the
authority is required to exercise discretion under Rule 5(2-
A) in an objective manner after proper verification and due
consideration.
11. It is equally relevant to state that respondent
No.7 holds a valid licence as on today. The authority is
empowered under statute to permit shifting and public
objections cannot automatically operate as veto but must
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2802
WP No. 100382 of 2026
HC-KAR
be duly examined. Therefore, this Court is of the view that
the interest of justice would be met by directing
reconsideration of the objections in a transparent manner.
12. The petitioners claim to be the residence of the
locality where shifting of CL-2 licence has been permitted.
The grievance is not merely against the grant of shifting but
also the manner in which the decision has been taken.
When the writ petition was filed, the Excise Department
Portal reflected that shifting permission has been accorded.
However, no detailed or reasoned order was available on
the portal. The order visible appeared to be system
generated or cyclostyled order. Subsequently, the State has
produced the document stated to be a reasoned order dated
12.01.2026 (Annexure-R10) contending that the objections
were considered. The order at Annexure-R10 only states
that, the objections were ‘verified’. However, on what
grounds they were rejected, and whether the petitioners fall
within the vicinity contemplated under Rule 5 and Rule 5(2-
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2802
WP No. 100382 of 2026
HC-KAR
A) of Rules 1967. These aspects are not clearly reflected in
the decision making process.
13. The private respondent has disputed the locus of
the petitioner, contending that they do not fall within the
prohibited vicinity under Rule 5 of Rules 1967. Once such
dispute is raised, it becomes more incumbent upon the
competent authority to objectively verify the residence of
the petitioners determine whether they are affected person
and record finding on such issue. Such determination
cannot be assumed or cryptically noted. Even assuming
Annexure-R10 to be contemporaneous, the decision must
demonstrate objective consideration. Mere statement that
the objections were verified is insufficient, administrative
discretion under Rule 5(2-A) must be reasoned, public
convenience, decency, tranquility and safety are relevant
statutory consideration. Absence of transparent reasoning
gives rise to apprehension that objections were not
meaningfully dealt with.
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2802
WP No. 100382 of 2026
HC-KAR
14. An additional concern arises from the functioning
of the portal:
i. The portal reflected shifting granted.
ii. No reasoned order was uploaded.
iii. Only a cyclostyle / system generated order was
visible.
iv. Detailed orders surfaced only during Court
proceedings.
15. In matters affecting public rights and objections,
transparency is essential. The portal must reflect the
complete decision and when a cyclostyled copy is uploaded,
it must indicate whether a reasoned order accompanies it,
and the entire speaking order must be simultaneously
uploaded. Failure to do so leads to avoidable litigation and
lack of public confidence in decision making.
16. In view of the above, this Court is of the
considered view that the decision making process requires
reconsideration and examination in respect of petitioner’s
– 13 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2802
WP No. 100382 of 2026
HC-KAR
locus, objective consideration of the objection and proper
recording of reason. Accordingly, this Court pass the
following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is disposed of.
ii. The matter is directed to be reconsidered
by respondent No.3.
iii. The authorities shall verify:
a. The residence and locus of the petitioner;
b. Conduct spot inspection, if required in the
presence of the petitioner and private
respondent.
c. Consider objection objectively under Rule 5
and Rule 5(2-A) of the Rules 1967.
d. The petitioners and respondent No.7 shall
appear on 24.02.2026 at 11.00 a.m.,
before the Authority, and the authority
shall consider the objections filed and pass
reasoned order within five days from
24.02.2026 in strict compliance of Rule 5
and Rule 5(2-A) of the Rules 1967.
– 14 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2802
WP No. 100382 of 2026
HC-KAR
e. Till consideration of the objection and
passing of a fresh reasoned order,
impugned order of shifting dated
12.01.2026 shall be kept in abeyance.
iv. The Department of Excise, in collaboration
with the E-Governance Cell is directed to:
a. Ensure that whenever a shifting order is
uploaded on the portal;
b. The complete speaking order is
simultaneously uploaded;
c. The system generated order shall
indicate that the reasoned order
accompanies it.
d. The mechanism shall be implemented to
ensure immediate access to the full
decision.
v. The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is
directed to communicate a copy of this
order to the Principal Secretary, Finance
Department (Excise), Government of
Karnataka, and to the Commissioner of
Excise, Bengaluru for compliance of the
directions issued herein, particularly with
regard to the mechanism for uploading
– 15 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2802
WP No. 100382 of 2026HC-KAR
recent orders on the E-Governance Portal
and ensure compliance within 12 weeks
from the date of receipt of the copy of this
order.
vi. The Commissioner of Excise shall place on
record through an affidavit, the steps taken
to implement the directions issued in this
order.
Sd/-
JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
MBM/PJ
Ct:VH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46
