Karnataka High Court
Sri Syed Hussain vs Karnataka State Small Industries on 3 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44062-DB
WA No. 1047 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1047 OF 2025 (GM-KSSIDC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SYED HUSSAIN
S/O LATE SYED AKBAR
AGED 70 YEARS
PROPRIETOR OF
M/S. ASH RECYCLERS
SHED NO.B-3
KSSIDC INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
PILLAGUMPA, HOSKOTE
BENGALURU NORTH DISTRICT
BENGALURU - 562 114
Digitally ...APPELLANT
signed by (BY SRI YASHWANTH NETHAJI N.T., ADVOCATE FOR
AMBIKA H B SRI K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE)
Location:
High Court of AND:
Karnataka
1. KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES
DEVELOMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 010
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44062-DB
WA No. 1047 of 2025
HC-KAR
BENGALURU DIVISION
BENGALURU - 560 010
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL
AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.9383/2020 (GM-KSSIDC) DATED
06/02/2025 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. For the reasons stated in the application ‒ I.A No.1/2025, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
2. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ petition No.9383/2020 (GM-KSSIDC). The appellant had filed the writ petition impugning an order dated 21.12.2019 passed by respondent No.2 [KSSIDC] cancelling the allotment of shed No.B-3 in Industrial Estate, Hosakote. The said premises was allotted to the appellant on 17.08.2013 and he took possession of the same on 30.09.2013. Allegedly, the appellant failed to pay -3- NC: 2025:KHC:44062-DB WA No. 1047 of 2025 HC-KAR the installments due to KSSIDC and also failed in establishing the industrial unit.
3. On 07.09.2019, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant calling upon him to explain why the allotment not be cancelled. It was alleged that the appellant had not complied with the following conditions of the allotment:
(i) had not insured the shed/renewed the insurance policy;
(ii) was in arrears of service charge to the extent of Rs.29,203/-
(including GST);
(iii) was in arrears in payment of installments to the extent of Rs.57,92,665.39 towards shed; and
(iv) the industry is not functioning.
There is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant responded to the said show cause notice.
4. Thereafter, KSSIDC issued a final show cause notice dated 05.11.2019. The appellant has filed a copy of the said show cause notice, which reflects that the same was issued on an alternate date of 06.11.2019. The appellant responded to the said show cause notice stating that he has insured the shed with Shriram -4- NC: 2025:KHC:44062-DB WA No. 1047 of 2025 HC-KAR General Insurance and had paid the service charges and arrears of installments. The appellant also called upon KSSIDC to furnish a calculation of the alleged dues, which he claimed would enable him to pay the arrears, if so found due.
5. Thereafter, the KSSIDC issued a cancellation order dated 21.12.2019, which was impugned by the appellant by filing a writ petition. It is alleged that the appellant had failed to pay installments of Rs.65,80,629/- by 31.12.2019.
6. KSSIDC filed statement of objections, inter alia, stating that the appellant had purchased the insurance policy after the issuance of the show cause notice. Further, the outstanding dues including interest as on 31.07.2024 was Rs.82,68,384/-.
7. It is contented by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was ready to pay the arrears. However, could not do so as he was not aware of the calculation. On a pointed query as to on what basis the appellant had calculated the payments made, the learned counsel for the appellant could not explain the same. Whilst the appellant has disputed the arrears demanded by the -5- NC: 2025:KHC:44062-DB WA No. 1047 of 2025 HC-KAR KSSIDC, he has failed to set out the schedule of installments or what would be the amount payable according to him.
8. The learned Single Judge had noted that the appellant had furnished an undertaking as on 07.03.2020 that he would pay the amount of Rs.66,40,000/- within a period of six months. However, he failed to pay the said amount.
9. The said undertaking is reproduced below.
"To, The Assistant General Manager (ID) K.S.S.I.D.D.L Rajajinagar, Bengaluru.
Sir, Shed number B-3 in Hosakote Industrial Estate was allotted by KASIDC during 2013. Due to some reasons, the shop instalments could not be paid. Therefore, a shop cancellation order was issued by your office on 24.12.2019. In the inquiry letter dated 14.02.2020, it was informed to attend the inquiry on 29.02.2020. Accordingly, with your permission, instead of 29.02.2020, I am present for the inquiry today, i.e., 07.03.2020.
Today, Rs.1,00,000/- has been paid through D.D. No.123178 dated 06.03.2020 drawn at Bank of Baroda towards the outstanding shop installment amount, and I hereby request that the remaining outstanding amount of Rs.66,40,000/- be allowed to -6- NC: 2025:KHC:44062-DB WA No. 1047 of 2025 HC-KAR be paid within the next six months, thereby encouraging small entrepreneurs.
Yours faithfully, Sd/- xxx (M/s ASH Recyclers) Shop No.B-3 Hosakote"
10. In view of the above, we are unable to find any fault in the impugned order in rejecting the appellant's challenge to the cancellation order. The learned Single Judge held that the appellant had failed to pay the arrears of installment, therefore, the KSSIDC was well within its right to cancel the allotment.
11. The appeal is unmerited and, accordingly, dismissed.
12. The pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE AHB, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17