Excise authorities must refer Rule 5(2) exemption representations to the Commissioner for consideration.

The petitioner held a CL-2 licence for premises in Ramamurthy Nagar, Bengaluru. After a school was established 53 metres from the licensed premises, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise directed her to shift the business.

Following an earlier appellate remand, the petitioner sought the benefit of Rule 5(2) of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967, contending that the distance was more than 50 metres but less than 100 metres.

The Deputy Commissioner nevertheless directed shifting on 29 June 2024; the Excise Commissioner dismissed her appeal on 21 August 2025, and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal affirmed the decision while permitting her to seek a reference under Rule 5(2).

The petitioner sought certiorari against the Tribunal’s order and the preceding orders.

Whether the Deputy Commissioner was required to consider the petitioner’s representation under Rule 5(2) and refer it to the Excise Commissioner before the shifting decision was acted upon

Whether the Court should quash the shifting order and the orders affirming it, or instead direct consideration of the Rule 5(2) representation while preserving the shifting order

The Court considered Rule 5 of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967, which governs licensing and restrictions relating to shop locations; it treated Rule 5(2) as permitting consideration of relief from the applicable location restriction through a reference to the Excise Commissioner.

The Court also referred to Section 61(2) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1969, under which an appeal had earlier been brought before the Excise Commissioner.

The Court observed that Rule 5(2) did not appear to provide guiding factors for the exercise of discretion, but did not examine its validity because the petitioner had not challenged the Rule.

The petitioner’s request for Rule 5(2) relief had not been considered before the authorities directed her to shift, despite the asserted distance falling within the range for which she sought relief.

The Tribunal’s order left the petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner for a reference, but the High Court considered that the representation should have been addressed before the earlier orders were made.

It therefore directed the Deputy Commissioner to consider the representation and refer it to the Excise Commissioner, while declining to interfere with the shifting order itself.

The Deputy Commissioner was directed to dispose of the representation within four weeks, and the petitioner was permitted to continue her business until then.

If the request under Rule 5(2) was not favourably considered, the Tribunal’s shifting order would remain operative; the interim permission to continue was limited to the period until the representation was decided.