<p>Bengaluru: The High Court on Monday rejected the government’s application for vacating or modifying the stay order on implementing and enforcing Rules 5 and 5A of Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968. </p><p>Justice K S Hemalekha noted serious questions of excess delegation and arbitrariness in the petition and posted matter to Feb 11 for hearing. </p><p>Following the rejection of its interlocutory application (IA), the excise department has postponed e-auction of unused liquor licences, scheduled between Jan 13 and 20. </p>.‘IPC Section 498A no panacea for matrimonial ills’: Karnataka High Court quashes dowry FIR.<p>Shantabai of Hubballi and two others had petitioned the Dharwad bench, contending that the newly inserted provisos provide for automatic lapsing and forfeiture of licences, denial of renewal and consequential inclusion of such licences for auction pool, without adjudicatory mechanism. </p><p>The court ordered interim stay on the rules on Dec 26. Appearing for the state, advocate general Shashikiran Shetty said the amended rules constitute policy decisions taken in public interest under Sec 71 of Karnataka Excise Act. The amendments are aimed at preventing licences from remaining defunct and augmenting state revenue, he said.</p><p>He said the interim stay is causing serious losses to the exchequer and if it is vacated, petitioners can participate in e-auction and no prejudice would be caused to them.</p><p>The court said the interim order was passed on a prima facie finding that the amended rules provide for automatic forfeiture and extinction of licence rights, denial of renewal and compulsory inclusion of such licences into an auction pool, all of which entail serious civil consequences and raise substantial issues of excess delegation and arbitrariness. </p><p>“The plea of revenue loss, though urged, cannot override judicial scrutiny where serious questions of excess delegation and arbitrariness arise. The balance of convenience, therefore, continues to lie in favour of maintaining interim protection,” the court said. </p><p>It said: “The present case stands on a distinct footing as the impugned e-auction notification has been issued and challenge is directed to the vires of the amended rules themselves. Therefore, the said orders do not persuade this court to vacate interim protection granted on 26.12.2025”. </p>
<p>Bengaluru: The High Court on Monday rejected the government’s application for vacating or modifying the stay order on implementing and enforcing Rules 5 and 5A of Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968. </p><p>Justice K S Hemalekha noted serious questions of excess delegation and arbitrariness in the petition and posted matter to Feb 11 for hearing. </p><p>Following the rejection of its interlocutory application (IA), the excise department has postponed e-auction of unused liquor licences, scheduled between Jan 13 and 20. </p>.‘IPC Section 498A no panacea for matrimonial ills’: Karnataka High Court quashes dowry FIR.<p>Shantabai of Hubballi and two others had petitioned the Dharwad bench, contending that the newly inserted provisos provide for automatic lapsing and forfeiture of licences, denial of renewal and consequential inclusion of such licences for auction pool, without adjudicatory mechanism. </p><p>The court ordered interim stay on the rules on Dec 26. Appearing for the state, advocate general Shashikiran Shetty said the amended rules constitute policy decisions taken in public interest under Sec 71 of Karnataka Excise Act. The amendments are aimed at preventing licences from remaining defunct and augmenting state revenue, he said.</p><p>He said the interim stay is causing serious losses to the exchequer and if it is vacated, petitioners can participate in e-auction and no prejudice would be caused to them.</p><p>The court said the interim order was passed on a prima facie finding that the amended rules provide for automatic forfeiture and extinction of licence rights, denial of renewal and compulsory inclusion of such licences into an auction pool, all of which entail serious civil consequences and raise substantial issues of excess delegation and arbitrariness. </p><p>“The plea of revenue loss, though urged, cannot override judicial scrutiny where serious questions of excess delegation and arbitrariness arise. The balance of convenience, therefore, continues to lie in favour of maintaining interim protection,” the court said. </p><p>It said: “The present case stands on a distinct footing as the impugned e-auction notification has been issued and challenge is directed to the vires of the amended rules themselves. Therefore, the said orders do not persuade this court to vacate interim protection granted on 26.12.2025”. </p>