Karnataka HC orders inspection of bar alleged to be inside church premises; says 100-metre rule would not apply if it is within the premises

The petitioner, a member of CSI Trinity Church, alleged that a lease of premises within the church had been used to operate Lumara Bar and Kitchen, where alcohol was served and dance performances were conducted.

He challenged the bar’s excise licence and the authorities’ alleged inaction on representations concerning the establishment.

The Church had also filed O.S. No. 407/2025, in which a temporary injunction was granted restraining commercial activity in the premises.

The State submitted that the licence complied with the applicable 100-metre restriction and that it would inspect the premises; the Greater Bengaluru Authority stated that it had issued a trade licence for a restaurant.

Whether the authorities should inspect the premises and consider the petitioner’s representations concerning the bar’s alleged location within church premises.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction requiring cancellation of the bar licence or other action against the alleged commercial use.

The Court considered the applicable excise rules, as described by the State, which prescribe a prohibited distance of 100 metres measured from the middle of the gate of a religious institution.

It observed that this distance restriction would not apply where a bar licence had been granted for a bar within the premises of a religious institution.

The Court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct the authorities to consider the representations in accordance with law.

The central factual dispute was whether the bar was within the church premises: the petitioner alleged that it was, while the State’s submission was that it was not.

Because the application of the 100-metre restriction would not resolve the issue if the bar was actually within the religious institution’s premises, the Court directed the authorities to inspect the site and determine the matter while considering the representations.

It did not decide whether the licence was invalid or order its cancellation.

Pending applications were closed.