(Prayer: 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.)

Oral Order

1. 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.

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 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 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 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;

          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 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- 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.

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 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.

          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 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.