(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under wherefore in the light of the above this Honble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorair quashing the impugned order dated 31.12.2026 passed by Respondent No.2 bearing No.DCE/BGM(N)/DTCR/BLC/549/2025-26 vide Annexure-A and etc.)

Oral Order

1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 31.12.2026 (Annexure-A), whereby CL-9 licence of the petitioner has been suspended for a period of 90 days.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents-State 2.

3. The petitioner is the holder of CL-9 license issued by respondent No.2- the Deputy Commissioner to sell Indian Manufactured Liquor and Foreign Liquor in the premises that is licensed at TMC No.1910/2419, Jalalpur road, Raibagh. Respondent No.4 has initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner by registering the First Information Report (FIR) alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 36 and 36(1)(g) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 ("the Act, 1965" for short) and Rule 10 of the Karnataka Excise (General Conditions of Licence) Rules, 1967.

4. The allegation in the FIR is that, when an adult consumer visited the petitioner's bar along with a minor child, and allegedly caused the minor to consume liquor, which was recorded and circulated on social media. Pursuant to the said video becoming viral, respondent No.4 inspected the premises and verified the CCTV footage of the relevant day i.e., 26.12.2025. It is stated that CCTV footage indicates that the adult entered the premises with the minor child at about 06.35 p.m., from the rear side of the petitioner's premises, took the minor child to a non- permit room where consumption of alcohol is prohibited and existed the premises along with the minor child at about 6.57 p.m.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, although the CCTV footage was verified by respondent No.4, proceedings were nevertheless initiated under Section 36(1)(g) of the Act, 1965, followed by issuance of a show cause notice. The petitioner submitted a reply to the said notice, however, without properly considering the reply and the material on record, the licence of the petitioner came to be suspended for a period 90 days, which according to the petitioner is in an arbitrary manner.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State submits that, an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal is available under Section 61(2) of the Act, 1965 and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.

7. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, although an alternative remedy is available, impugned action suffers from violations of principles of natural justice and therefore the writ petition is maintainable under the exception carved out.

8. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

9. In the impugned order, respondent No.2 at paragraph No.2 has observed as under:



10. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that, while reference is made to the CCTV footage, the order does not record any findings as to whether the minor child consumed liquor in the premises or whether the petitioner permitted the minor to enter the prohibited area. No reasons are forthcoming on this crucial aspect.

11. Be that as it may, an alternative remedy is available and this Court deemed it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the appropriate appellate authority.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court that in certain similar placed cases, even where allegations were stated to be graver, the suspension imposed was for a shorter duration.

13. However, it is well settled that a negative benefit is extended in another case cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court pass the following order:

ORDER

          i. The writ petition is disposed of.

          ii. The petitioner is granted liberty to approach the appropriate appellate authority under Section 61(2) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 by filing an appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of this order.

          iii. In the event of such an appeal being filed and an application for stay for suspension, the Excise Commissioner shall consider the interim application filed by the petitioner seeking stay of the suspension within a period of two weeks thereafter.

          iv. The CL-9 licence of the petitioner has already remained under suspension for a period of one week pursuant to the impugned order, hence in the peculiar facts and circumstances, till such consideration of the interim application before the Appellate Authority, operation and execution of the impugned order of suspension dated 31.12.2026 (Annexure-A) shall be kept in abeyance.

          v. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not violate any of the conditions of CL-9 license.

          vi. It is farther clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all the contentions of both the parties are kept open to be urged before the Appellate Authority.