Deleted hearing safeguard and suppression of facts defeated writ challenge to excise demand and denied discretionary relief.

A post-deletion demand under Rule 14(2) of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian & Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1968 could not be challenged on the footing that a prior hearing was still required as of right, because the rule had already been deleted when the demand and related order were made. The liability was treated as a fiscal consequence for short lifting of liquor, not as a penalty requiring proof of mens rea, and the petitioner had not raised timely objections or offered an explanation despite notice. Writ relief was also refused because the petitioner suppressed material facts, including an undertaking to the Department and a subsequent licensing order, and a writ court may deny discretionary relief for lack of full disclosure.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand under Rule 14(2) of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian & Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1968, could be challenged on the ground that no prior hearing was granted after the rule had been deleted; (ii) Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected for suppression and concealment of material facts.

Issue (i): Whether the demand under Rule 14(2) of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian & Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1968, could be challenged on the ground that no prior hearing was granted after the rule had been deleted.

Analysis: The demand and the related order were made after deletion of Rule 14(2) with effect from 1.8.2014, so the petitioner could not claim enforcement of the deleted proviso as of right. The liability under the rule was treated as a fiscal consequence for short lifting of liquor, not as a penalty requiring proof of mens rea. Even on facts, the petitioner did not raise any objection or furnish any explanation after the demand notices, despite being aware of the short lifting and despite giving an undertaking to pay the amount for renewal of the licence.

Conclusion: The challenge based on absence of prior hearing failed and no relief was available to the petitioner on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected for suppression and concealment of material facts.

Analysis: The petitioner did not disclose the undertaking given to the Department or the subsequent order passed by the licensing authority on that undertaking. A litigant invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 must approach the Court with clean hands and full disclosure. Concealment of material facts justified refusal of discretionary relief, independently of the merits of the demand.

Conclusion: The writ petition was liable to be dismissed for concealment of material facts.

Final Conclusion: The Court refused to interfere with the excise demand and declined writ relief, holding that the deleted hearing provision could not be invoked and that the petitioner's non-disclosure independently disentitled her to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court may decline discretionary relief where the petitioner suppresses material facts, and a deleted statutory hearing safeguard cannot be enforced as of right against a post-deletion demand, especially where no timely objection was raised.

---