Karnataka High Court
Dharwad Growth Centre vs The Union Of India on 11 February, 2022
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.103873/2021 (GM-KIADB)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.106335/2014 (GM-KIADB)
IN WRIT PETITION NO.103873/2021 (GM-KIADB)
BETWEEN
DHARWAD GROWTH CENTRE
INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION (R)
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
SRI. PRAKASH CHANDRA
AGE 53 YEARS, OCC. SECRETARY
KIADB COMPLEX, BELUR
DHARWAD-580011.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADV.)
AND
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
BY ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES
DEPT. OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
UDYOG BHAVAN
NEW DELHI.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND
2
INDUSTRIES AND
THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
# 49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS,
'EAST WING', KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
EXECUTIVE MEMBER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
# 49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS,
'EAST WING' KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
# 49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS,
'EAST WING' KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
5. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
# HEAD OFFICE, 49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS,
'EAST WING' KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
6. THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER/
DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
ZONAL OFFICE, NO. 33/A,
LAKAMANA HALLI, INDUSTRIAL AREA,
P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD-04.
3
7. M/S PRAKALPA HOSPITALITIES
NO. 34, PRAKALPA,
BRINDAVAN LAYOUT,
VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI,
HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD.
8. M/S RASHTROTTHAN PARISHAT
KESHAVASHILPA,
KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560004.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. B. KANAVI, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2;
SMT. SHARMILA M. PATIL, ADV. FOR R3 TO R6;
SRI. GANGADHAR GURUMATH, ADV. FOR
SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR
R7;
SRI. K. L. PATIL AND S. S. BETURMATH, ADV. FOR R8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ALLOTMENT IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT
NO.7 VIDE LETTER OF ALLOTMENT BEARING
NO.IADB/HO/ALLOT/CN-34017/12440/2020-21 DATED
15/02/2021 AND CONFIRMATORY LETTER OF
ALLOTMENT NO.KIADB/HO/23185/JD/3646/2021-22
DATED 8/07/2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS NO.5
AND 6 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-C AND C1 RESPECTIVELY;
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ALLOTMENT IN
FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT NO.7 VIDE LETTER OF
ALLOTMENT NO.IADB/HO/ALLOT/CN-34017/12441/2020-
21 DATED 15/02/2021 AND CONFIRMATORY LETTER OF
ALLOTMENT LETTER BEARING NO. KIADB/ HO/23186/
6025/ 2021-22 DATED 12/08/2021 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENTS NO.5 AND 6 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-C2
AND C3 RESPECTIVELY; AND A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING THE ALLOTMENT IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT
NO.8 VIDE LETTER OF ALLOTMENT
4
NO.IADB/HO/ALLOT/23155/1392/2021-22 DATED
28/04/2021 AND CONFIRMATORY LETTER OF
ALLOTMENT BEARING NO. KIADB/ HO/ 23155/ JD/ 1499/
2021-22 DATED 29/04/2021 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENTS NO.5 AND 6 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-C4
AND C5 RESPECTIVELY.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.106335/2014 (GM-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. DHARWAD GROWTH CENTRE
INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION (R),
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
SRI. RAMESH S/O MAHANTAPPA PARUSHETTI
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: SECRETARY,
KIADB COMPLEX, BELUR,
DHARWAD-11.
2. DHARWAD GROWTH CENTRE
INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION (R),
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
SRI. SHRIKANT S/O NARAYAN HULAMANI
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT,
KIADB COMPLEX, BELUR,
DHARWAD-11.
3. M/S PROTECH ENGINEERS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
SRI. S. J. HAMPANNAVAR,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
BELUR INDUSTRIAL AREA, BELUR,
DHARWAD.
4. M/S AMITRON CADAM SERVICES
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. V. D. DODAMANI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
5
5. M/S SIDDHANTH WOODEN WORKS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
SRI. S. P. CHIPRE,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
6. M/S SHUBHAM PACKAGING SOLUTION
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. U. S. HULAMANI,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
7. M/S PADMAJA ENGINEERING
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
C. DEEPA,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
8. M/S RAGHAV FORGE (P) LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
SRI. D. M. LADDAD,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
9. M/S RENUKA ENGINEERING WORKS
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. V. Y. KADAM,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
10. M/S RAYAR ENGINEERING WORKS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR B. RAYAR,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
11. M/S DIWANJI LEATHER INDUSTRIES
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI. RAJU G. DIWANJI,
6
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
12. M/S FABRO TECH ENGINEERING WORKS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. S. S. PILLAI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
13. M/S RADA CEMENT PRODUCTS
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. M. D. PATIL,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
14. M/S JMT AUTO LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
SRI. PRAKASH CHANDRA,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
15. M/S MAHANTESH ENGINEERING WORKS
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. M. B. GALI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
16. M/S S. K. TECHNOLOGIES
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER,
SRI. K. BALKRISHNA,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
17. M/S AKSHAY ENGINEERING WORKS
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. S. S. HOSAMANI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
18. M/S OMEGA FABRICATION & ELECTRICALS
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
7
SRI. PREMAJITH J. NAIR,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
19. M/S APEX AUTO LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. MANAGER,
SRI. PRAVEEN H.,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
20. M/S LAXMINARAYAN INDUSTRIES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
SRI. M. M. AGADI,
AGE: YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
21. M/S MAHANTESH UNITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. V. A. SARDESAI,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
22. M/S AMBA ENGINEERING WORKS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
SRI. RAMESH M. YALIGAR,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
23. M/S INDUSTRIAL COOLING TOWER COMPANY
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
SRI. SANJAY V. AMMINBHAVI,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
------- REST DO -------
24. M/S ASHAR WOOD PRODUCTS
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
SRI. M. D. SATTIGERI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
8
25. M/S GURU INDUSTRIES
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
SRI. MANOJ I. SANGOLI,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
26. M/S ESSENTIAL PHARMA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. PRAVEEN HULIGOL,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
27. M/S S P AUTO (INDIA)
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. SANJEEV K. DAS,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
28. M/S UNICAB SYSTEM & CONTROLS
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. SANJEEV K. DAS,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
29. M/S A. B. ELASTO PRODUCT
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
SRI. UJJAL BHOL,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
30. M/S ROTO PRINTERS & CONVERTERS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. S. N. HULAMANI,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
31. M/S RATNA UDYOG
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. M. D. PATIL,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
9
32. M/S SIDDESHWAR FERRO ALLOYS
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. K. S. HAJNALE,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
33. M/S SIDDESHWAR FLUXES & ALLOYS
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. VINAYAK HAJNALE,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
34. M/S S.L.V. FEEDS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
SRI. M. L. KULKARNI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
35. M/S JAS PETS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. P. M. BHURATH,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO ------
36. M/S OMKAR INDUSTRIES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
SRI. S. AGARWAL,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
37. M/S CHILIPILI PUBLISHERS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SRI. S. C. HULAGATTI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
38. M/S SACHIN ENTERPRISES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. RAMESH AGARWAL,
10
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
39. M/S LAXMI NARASIMHA ENGG. WORKS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. MADHU KANTH,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
40. M/S AUM POLYPACK
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. VISHAL HULAMANI,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
41. M/S MARUTI GRINITES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. SHRIKANT MEHARWADE,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
42. M/S FEATHER TOUCH IND'S,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. MAHESH K. NADIGER,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
43. M/S MISHRA FOODS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SMT. ASHA MISHRA,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
44. M/S INNOVATIVE FEEDS PVT. LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
SRI. BASALINGAPPA S.,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
11
45. M/S INNOVATIVE CONCEPTS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. T. P. BHAGAVAT,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
46. M/S SHREE GANESH ENTERPRISES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. ASHOK B. WADAWADAGI,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
47. M/S MANAVI ENTERPRISES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
SRI. D. MANJUNATH,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
48. M/S TRACK MATES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. V. G. KULKARNI,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
49. M/S KANDULA GINNING LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
SRI. M. V. SUBBAREDDY,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
50. M/S MURALI SPINNERS LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
SRI. M. V. SUBBAREDDY,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
51. M/S POWER SERVICE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. RAJU TENGINKAI,
12
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
52. M/S ASVIK VALVES PVT. LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
SRI. PRAKASH S. DANI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
53. M/S ASPEN STEEL ROLLING MILL,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. G. S. SHEK,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
54. M/S ADISHAKTI ENGINEERING WORKS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. SHANTESH C. KANAGODAGI,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
55. M/S G. M. TOOLS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER,
SRI. M. ABRAHIM,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
56. M/S MANJUNATH SERVICES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. SHRISHAIL N. GOKAVI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
57. M/S PRIME WOOD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
SRI. M. D. SATTIGERI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
13
58. M/S MADHU ENGINEERING,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. I. M. KATTI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
59. M/S UNI VTL PRECISION PVT. LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OPERATIVE OFFICER,
M. SHIVANGI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
60. M/S KGN STEELS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER,
SRI. A. D. AMARGOL,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
61. M/S SHAKUNT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
SRI. N. R. JADHAV,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
62. M/S PATIL INDUSTRIES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
SRI. S. C. PATIL,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
63. M/S WHITE SALES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. A. S. HOSAMANI,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
64. M/S KALIKA WOODEN WORKS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. NIRANJAN N. BADIGER,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
14
65. M/S HIGHCHO ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVE,
SRI. SAHADEB TRIPATHY,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
66. M/S NIKHIL FOODS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. V. C. DODAMANI,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO ------
67. M/S KAMAL INDUSTRIES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
SRI. SUNIL BHANDARI,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
68. M/S APCON ENGINEERING,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REPRESENTATIVE,
SRI. SHIRISH UPPIN,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
69. M/S SOUTHERN FERRO STEELS LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
SRI. SHIVANAND NAIK,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
70. M/S LAXMI AGRO INDUSTRY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
SRI. SHRIDHAR REDDY,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
71. M/S SANJAY INDUSTRIES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
15
SRI. S. F. PATIL,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
72. M/S DURATECH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. N. S. HALAGATTI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
73. M/S WALLACE LABORATORIES PVT. LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
SRI. V. M. SAWANT,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
74. M/S STAR AUTO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PLANT HEAD,
SRI. UDAY DESAI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
75. M/S SHIRIN ENGINEERS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. I. G. HOTANAHALLI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
76. M/S BELLAD AUTO PARTS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
SRI. PRASHANT S. BELLAD,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
77. M/S SUDHIKSHYA INDUSTRIES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. M. B. YADRAVI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
16
78. M/S SHREYA ENGINEERING,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. P. V. JINDRA,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
79. M/S EXTRACT ENGINEERING WORKS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SRI. D. J. GUDAGANTI,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
80. M/S GUNDGUNTI ENGINEERING WORKS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. SATISH S. GUNDGUNTI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
81. M/S DEVAS ENGINEERING CO.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. SHIVARAM BHAT,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
82. M/S JAGNNATH PACKAGE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
SRI. B. NARASIMHA SHANAI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
83. M/S RSB TRANSMISSIONS (I) LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
SRI. GAUTAM RAUT,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
84. M/S DURGA DARSHINI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. RAMA D. NAIK,
17
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
85. M/S ENGINEMATES HEAT TRANSFEP PVT. LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
SRI. RANJYAKUMAR,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
86. M/S CONGZHOU PACKAGING
MACHINERY MANUFACTURING CO.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. A. J. SIWACH,
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
87. M/S AKSHAY INDUSTRIES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. BALAKRISHNA K.,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
88. M/S V-TECH POWER HYDRAULIC,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. VITHAL B. KHATAVKAR,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
89. M/S TATANAGAR METAL INDUSTRIES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
SRI. S. M. MUSALEKAR,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
90. M/S PRATIKSHA INDUSTRIES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
SRI. RAMAKRISHNA KAMBLE,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
18
91. M/S GOD GIFT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. S. R. REDDY,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
92. M/S NICHROME CHEMICALS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. KRISHNA KULKARNI,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
93. M/S RAUNAK TUBES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
SRI. RAVEENDRAN S.,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
94. M/S ACCURATE WEIGH BRIDGE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
SRI. SHANKAR B. KOLAR,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
95. M/S RAGHAVENDRA FLOUR MILL,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. NARAYAN B. AGARWAL,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
96. M/S PRERANA ENTERPRISES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. R. B. BABLESHWAR,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
97. M/S 3P PRODUCTS ,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. A. R. PARUSHETTI,
19
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
98. M/S SWATI FOOD PRODUCTS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. JAYASHEELA B. BELADAVAR,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
99. M/S J. B. FOODS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. V. K. GURAV,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
100. M/S PROLINE ENGINEERS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
SRI. S. J. HAMPANNAVAR,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
101. M/S JYOTI MOSAIC INDUSTRIES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. SHRINIVAS S. JEERIGWAD,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
102. M/S SHIROL ENTERPRISES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. V. R. SHIROL,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
103. M/S KHAN ENTERPRISES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. IBRAHIM Y. KHAN,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
20
104. M/S CHALUKYA ENGINEERS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. MALLESH B. K. KAREPANAVAR,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
105. M/S KARIYAMMA ICE-CREAMS ,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. KALMESH M. KORAVAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
106. M/S PUBLIC STD & XEROX,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. K. Y. GALI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
107. M/S GUJARAT NRE COKE LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE-PRESIDENT,
SRI. SUNIL MASKAR,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
108. M/S SHIVAYOGI INDUSTRIES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. RAMACHANDRA D. NAIK,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
109. M/S NAIK ENTERPRISES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. DILAWAR R. NAIK,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
110. M/S SIDDHARTH ENGINEERS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
SRI. SUHAS PAWAR,
21
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
111. M/S GANESH FOOD PRODUCTS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. B. N. DALWAI,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
------- REST DO -------
112. M/S ABHISHEK ENGINEERING WORK,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. L. V. KAMATAR,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
...PETITIONERS
(SRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADV.)
PETITIONER NOS. 3 TO 112 HAVE BEEN IMPLEADED AS
PER THE ORDER OF THE COURT DATED 19/12/2014 ON
I.A. NO. 2/2014.
AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA,
BY ITS SECRETARY TO,
MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES,
DEPT. OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT,
UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.
2. THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE-01.
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES AND
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE KARNATAKA
22
INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
RASHTROTHAN PARISHAD BUILDING,
NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-01.
4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER &
EXECUTIVE MEMBER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
RASHTROTHAN PARISHAD BUILDING, (KIADB)
NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-01.
5. THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER/
DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
RASHTROTHAN PARISHAD BUILDING, (KIADB)
ZONAL OFFICE, NO.33/A,
LAKAMANA HALLI, INDUSTRIAL AREA,
P.B.ROAD, DHARWAD-04.
6. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL),
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION,
KPTCL, VIDYUTHNAGAR,
KARWAR ROAD, HUBLI - 580024.
7. M/S NAVODAYA INDUSTRIAL AND
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT,
14TH CROSS ROAD, NAVODAYA NAGAR,
DHARWAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER,
SRI. C.B. YALIGAR.
8. SMT. RENUKA F. JAKKAPPANAVAR
MAJOR,
DOOR NO. 76, "JAI BHEEMA NILAYA",
HEGGERI EXTENTION, OLD HUBLI,
HUBLI - 580 024.
9. M/S. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED,
MARKETING DIVISION,
KHANAPUR ROAD, TILAKWADI,
23
BELGAUM - 590 006,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
10. M/S. HOTEL VISHWA
SRI. NARAYAN R. SHETTY,
"VISHWA KRUPA", HUBLI TOLLNAKA,
P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD.
11. DEPUTY DIRECTOR TRAINING,
DEPARTMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, A.A. BYAHATTI BUILDING,
VIDYA NAGAR, HUBLI - 21.
12. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BOARD,
ADMINISTRATION OFFICE BUILDING,
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, RAJAJI NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560044.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR
R2, R3 AND R11;
SRI. M. B. KANAVI, ADV. FOR R1;
SMT. SHARMILA PATIL, ADV. FOR R4 TO R5 AND R12;
SRI. B. S. KAMATE, ADV. FOR R6;
SRI. B. D. HEGDE, ADV. FOR R7;
R8 SERVED;
SRI. C. V. ANGADI, ADV. FOR R9;
SRI. J. S. SHETTY, ADV. FOR R10)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO. KIADB/
WP64483/2009/2713/2013-14 DATED 21/24.05.2013
PASSED BY THE RSEPONDENT NO.4 IN SO FAR AS
REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONERS TO AN
EXTENT OF 131 ACRES 6 GUNTAS MARKED AT
ANNEXURE-C; QUASH THE ALLOTMENTS IN FAVOUR OF
RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 12 VIDE ALLOTMENT ORDER/
24
LETTER DATED 01.08.2006, 15.07.2003, 17.12.2002,
02.11.1999, 30.07.2005, 18.01.1997 AND 22.05.2003
ISSUED BY THE 4TH AND 5TH RESPONDENTS MARKED AT
ANNEXURE - D, D1 TO D6 RSEPECTIVELY AND DIRECT
THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 5, TO IMPLEMENT THE
DECISION OF THE BOARD IN ITS 210TH BODY MEETING
DATED 03.04.1998 IN FILE NO.13754/ENGG, SUBJECT
NO.23 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-E.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner in the writ petition in W.P.
No.103873/2021 is an 'Association' registered in the
year 2004 under the provisions of the Karnataka
Societies Registration Act, 1960 and the petitioner
contends that it is constituted and registered to promote
the interest of the entrepreneurs who have been allotted
industrial plots in the Dharwad Growth Centre and the
employees in employment with such entrepreneurs.
The petitioner in WP No.106335.2014 has impugned the
order of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development
Board [for short, 'the KIADB'] dated 21-24.05.2013.
This order reads as under:
"The representations made by Dharwad Growth
Centre Industries Association (Regd) has been
examined. It is ordered that the Board would
develop the remaining extent of 111 acres in
Belur - Dharwad Growth Centre Industrrial Area
at Narendra and Mummigatti Villages, Dharwad
Taluk & District for formation of Housing Layout
and carry out allotments. The request of the said
Association to develop Housing Layout in the
entire 241.52 acres has been rejected in view of
the fact that the Board has already made
allotments to an extent of 131 acres 6 guntas to
allottees in accordance with rules for housing of
industrial infrastructural facilities."
The petitioner has also impugned the allotments of
certain plots in favour of the private respondents viz.,
sixth to twelfth respondents. In the next writ petition in
W.P. No.103873/2021, the petitioner has impugned the
allotments and confirmation thereof in favour of the
seventh and eighth respondents in the month of
February and August, 2021 respectively as per
Annexures C1-C4.
2. A brief statement leading to the petitions are
that the Union of India announced its decision to set up
100 Growth Centres across the Country, and in
pursuance of such announcement, communication is
addressed to the Chief Secretaries of the State
Government in the month of December 1988 informing
the allotment of 61 Growth Centres, the criteria for
selection of Growth Centres and such other parameters.
In fact, three Growth Centres are allotted for the State
of Karnataka, and one of these three Growth Centres is
proposed by the KIADB, the implementing agency, at
Dharwad.
3. The Growth Centres have two components,
according to this proposal; an 'industrial zone' and a
'social infrastructure zone'. The Growth Centre at
Dharwad is proposed in a total extent of 2,227.70 acres
with 88.78% being reserved for the 'industrial zone' and
11.22% being reserved for the 'social infrastructure
zone'. The proposal for Social Infrastructure Zone is in
250 acres comprising of 180 acres of marketable area
[72%] and the non marketable area of 70 acres [28%].
The Social Infrastructure Zone is envisaged as a
Housing Zone with a variety of amenities. The present
writ petition and even the petitioner's earlier writ
petition in W.P. No.64483/2009 pertain to 241 acres
earmarked for the 'Housing Zone'.
4. It transpires from the records, and it is
undisputed that the KIADB, to ascertain the feasibility
of developing Social Infrastructure Zone invited
proformas from the entrepreneurs, to whom industrial
plots were allotted, and its employees for allotment of
sites in the proposed Housing Zone, but no applications
were received. Thereafter, a decision was taken to allot
the industrial plots in an area measuring 130.56 acres
in the lands proposed as Social Infrastructure Zone and
utilize the remaining 111 acres for the purposes of the
housing infrastructure.
5. Consequentially, in the mid 1990s certain
area in this extent of 130.56 acres in the Social
Infrastructure Zone is allotted as industrial plots to the
sixth to twelfth respondents in the first writ petition in
W.P. No.106335/2014. Amongst these respondents,
other than the seventh respondent viz., M/s. Navodaya
Industrial and Housing Development, others have
executed their project and are in the possession of the
respective industrial plots.
6. The petitioner has filed writ petition in W.P.
No.64483/2009 for a direction to consider their
different representations, for a direction to cancel the
allotments made to certain third parties [obviously, the
reference is to the sixth to twelfth respondents herein]
and for a direction to allot plots to the industrial
community as a 'Housing Zone'. This Court has
disposed of this writ petition with certain observations,
conclusions and liberties. This Court has also directed
the KIADB to consider the petitioner's representation.
7. Thereafter, the KIADB has held a meeting on
14.05.2013 to extend an opportunity to the petitioner
for consideration of its representations in terms of this
Court's direction in the said petition. The Minutes of
this Meeting in its material part reads as follows:
"The CEO & EM drew the attention of the said
Association regarding acquisition of 241.52 acres
of land in Narendra and Mummigatti Villages of
Dharwad Taluk & District for formation of
Housing Layout by the board and allotment made
by the Board to an extent of 131acres 06guntas
to various allottees and entrustment of the work
for preparation of detailed project report for the
formation of Housing Layout in the remaining 111
acres.
The Secretary of the said Association has
objected to the allotment of 50 acres of land
already made by the Board in favour of M/s
Navodaya Industrial Housing Developers for
formation of housing layout, and made a plea to
develop housing layout by the Board itself in the
area remaining vacant including 50 acres allotted
to M/s Navodaya Industrial Housing Developers.
The CEO & EM has assured the Members
of the association who are present that he will
consider the representations of the petitioner
Association in accordance with law and would
take a decision in the matter within ten days.
It is after this Meeting that the KIADB has issued the
impugned order holding that it would develop 111 acres
in Belur-Dharwad Growth Centre Industrial Area for
formation of a Housing layout and carry out allotments.
8. This Court must next record the petitioner's
canvas for impugning the allotments made in favour of
the seventh and eighth respondents in the second writ
petition in W.P. No.103873/2021. M/s. Navodaya
Industrial and Housing Development Corporation, the
seventh respondent in W.P. No.106335/2014, was
allotted 50 acres, but this allotment was cancelled by
the KIADB in terms of its communication dated 5-
15.03.2017. This respondent has impugned such
cancellation in O.S. No.88/2010. The suit is decreed by
the Judgment dated 12.12.2012 declaring that the
cancellation of allotment was arbitrary and invalid with
a direction to the KIADB to work out the actual area to
be developed by this respondent excluding the land
allotted to another allottee viz., M/s. KPTCL.
9. The KIADB has impugned this Judgment
and decree in RFA No.4166/2013. This appeal is
allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by its
judgment dated 26.04.2013 and consequentially, the
judgment and decree dated 12.12.2012 in O.S.
No.88/2010 is set aside and the suit dismissed. The
seventh respondent has impugned the division Bench's
judgment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special
Leave Petition No.14458/2016 but unsuccessfully.
However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that
the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition will not
preclude the respondent to approach the authorities for
a fresh allotment in accordance with law.
10. After the culmination of the aforesaid
cancellation, the KIADB has allotted the same extent in
three parcels. The seventh respondent is allotted 9
acres for a hotel and convention centre and another
extent of 19 acres 12 guntas for the purpose of
Naturopathy and Ayurvedic Treatment Centre but this
is subsequently modified for the purpose of logistics and
warehousing services. The eighth respondent is allotted
5 acres for the purposes of educational training and
other institutions. These allotments have been made in
favour of the seventh and eighth respondents [who are
arrayed accordingly in the subsequent writ petition]
pursuant to their application under the Karnataka
Industries [Facilitation] Act, 2002 and the clearance
granted there under.
11. Sri. Srinand A. Pachhapure, the learned
counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court has
disposed of the writ petition in W.P. No.64483/2009,
after recording certain objections by the respondents
therein with directions to the KIADB to consider the
petitioner's representation in accordance with law and
to take appropriate decision. The petitioner's
representations includes a request for allotment of the
entire area reserved for Social Infrastructure Zone to the
industrial entrepreneurs and their employees as
housing sites, and also the request for cancellation of
the allotments. Therefore, the KIADB had to consider
the permissibility of granting any portion of 241 acres
which is reserved for Social Infrastructure Zone, as
industrial plots. He submits that KIADB's decision not
to cancel the allotments made to the respondents in the
writ petition in W.P. No.106335/2014 at the first
instance and later to the seventh and eighth
respondents in the writ petition in W.P.
No.103873/2021 [after the cancellation of the allotment
in favour of the seventh respondent in the first writ
petition] is wholly impermissible and contrary to the
very Scheme under which the Growth Centre at
Dharwad is established.
12. The learned counsel, in elaboration of his
submission in this regard, draws the attention of this
Court to the details of the Scheme, which are not
disputed, to contend that no extent in the area proposed
originally as Social Infrastructure Zone could have been
allotted as industrial plots. He urges that even
independent of the Scheme, the KIADB could not have
allotted any portion of 241 acres earmarked for social
infrastructure zone either for the establishment of a
Hotel or a convention centre or educational institutions
or logistical services [earlier for Ayurvedic College] and
the allotment could only be for the industrial purpose as
defined under the KIAD Act or for the amenities as
described therein.
13. The learned counsel next submits that the
allotment in favour of the seventh and eighth
respondents in the subsequent writ petition is also
contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial
Areas Development Act, 1966 [for short, 'KIAD Act'] and
the relevant Regulations. He contends that these
allotments could not have been except in accordance
with Regulation 7 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Board Regulations, 1969. He concludes
that this Court therefore, must allow the petition and
cancel the allotment.
14. Sri. Gangadhar Gurumath, the learned
senior Counsel who appears for the KIADB, supported
by the learned counsel for the allottees, Sri. B.S.
Kamate, Sri. K.L. Patil, Sri. J.S. Shetty, Sri.
Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath and also Sri.
Shivaprabhu Hiremath, learned Additional Government
Advocate, submits that the petitioners have no locus to
challenge the allotment either in favour of the allottees
who are arrayed as the private respondents in the first
writ petition or as private respondents in the
subsequent writ petition.
15. In support of this contention, the learned
Senior Counsel canvasses the following two fold
submissions. Firstly, the allotment in favour of all the
private respondents in both these writ petition is part of
131.56 acres. The petitioner's challenge to the
allotment of industrial plots and for amenities in this
extent of 130.56 acres has been negated by this Court
in the earlier writ petition with this Court holding in
unequivocal terms that the petitioner, who had not
challenged the allotments made in the 1990s, cannot
challenge such allotments especially when the allottees
have developed the areas allotted to them incurring
financial expenditure. This Courts order in W.P.
No.64483/2009 has attained finality since the petitioner
has not challenged such order. The contention that the
KIADB was directed to consider the representation
which included representation for cancellation of the
allotment would therefore be too specious.
16. Secondly, the learned senior counsel
submits that the petitioner has no locus to challenge
the allotments. The canvass in this regard is specific to
the two set of private respondents. Insofar as the
allotment in favour of the private respondents in the
first writ petition, he submits that the petitioner is not
even an applicant and if the petitioner is not even an
applicant for any plot, it cannot challenge the
cancellation. As regards the private respondents in the
subsequent writ petition, it is contended that the
allotment in their favour is under the provisions of the
Karnataka Industries [Facilitation] Act, 2002 and if any
person is aggrieved by any allotment under such
enactment, must necessarily be an applicant. The
learned Senior Counsel in support of this last ground
places reliance upon the decision of a division Bench of
this Court dated 15.10.2020 in the writ appeal in W.A.
No.3987/2019 and draws the attention of this Court to
paragraph-10.
17. The learned senior Counsel and the other
counsels for the private respondents, as also the learned
Additional Government Advocate, submit that the
allotment of any portion of 241 acres earmarked for
Social Infrastructure Zone could have be allotted for any
purpose including for housing. They emphasize that
KIADB has promoted the Growth Centre as an
implementing agency to give effect to the policy of the
Union Government to set up Growth Centres to promote
development in the areas that had not developed
industrially. They rely upon terms of the policy as
communicated to the Chief Secretaries in the year 1988.
18. The learned Senior counsel and other
learned counsels draw the attention of this Court to the
Union Government's communication dated 8.12.1988,
informing the State Government about the allocation of
Growth Centres and different parameters for such
development. They submit that the infrastructure that
is contemplated under the policy is not just
construction of access roads, provisions of water
supply, affluent of disposal system, provision for
telecommunication and distribution network for power
within the Growth Centre but also for
development/upgradation of existing schools, colleges,
Industrial Training Institutes, Hospitals and
dispensaries. Further, Sri. K.L.Patil and
Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath emphasize that the
allotment to the seventh respondent being for the
purpose such as hospitals, convention centres,
education and logistics and warehousing, would come
within the 'infrastructure' contemplated under the policy
19. The learned senior counsel and other
learned counsels further submit that KIADB has
promoted the Growth Centre as an implementing
agency to give effect to the policy of the Union
Government to set up Growth Centres to promote
development in the areas that had not developed
industrially. The decision to allot industrial plots in
130.56 acres within Social Infrastructure Zone is taken
for the reasons that no one responded to the proformas
issued. The merits of the allotment in favour of the
private respondents, even if it could be examined at the
instance of the petitioner who has no locus, must
necessarily be examined in these circumstances.
20. The learned counsels lastly rely upon the
decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the writ
petitions in W.P. Nos.404-443/2013 to emphasize that
the petitioner has been a busy body calling in question
different allotments and the division Bench has
disposed of the aforesaid writ petitions filed by the
petitioner along with others imposing cost of
Rs.40,000/- observing that no public interest is
espoused. The present petitions must also be dismissed
for the same reason.
21. In rejoinder, Sri. Srinand A. Pachhapure
submits that ordinarily allotment must be under the
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board
Regulations, 1969 and only when there is consultation
with the Government as contemplated under
Regulation-13, there could be exception from the
procedure contemplated under Regulation 7 of these
regulations. Therefore, in the absence of any material
on record, neither the KIADB nor the seventh and
eighth respondents can justify the allotment under
Regulation-17.
22. Insofar as the disposal of the writ petitions
in W.P. Nos.404-443/2013 imposing cost of
Rs.40,000/-, the learned counsel submits that the
petitioner, with the others could not persuade the
Division Bench to accept that they were espousing
public cause and the same cannot be relied upon in the
present writ petitions as the petitioner is seeking for
enforcement of a Scheme mooted by the Union of India
including social infrastructure zone for housing
purposes.
23. In the light of the rival submissions, the
questions for consideration are,
Whether the petitioners, with the decision of this
Court in the writ petition in W.P.
No.64483/2009, can sustain a challenge to the
allotments made in favour of the private
respondents, including the seventh and eighth
respondents in the subsequent writ petition as
the allotment in their favour is consequent to
cancellation of allotment in favour of the seventh
respondent in the first writ petition;
24. At the outset, this Court must observe that
there is no dispute that the KIADB by the impugned
order dated 21/24.05.2013 is only reiterating its earlier
decision to allot 130.56 acres out of the total extent of
241 acres proposed as Social Infrastructure Zone as
industrial plots and use the remaining 111 acres for
development of a Housing project. There is also no
dispute that the allotment of industrial plots in favour of
the private respondents in these two petitions is part of
this 130.56 acres. This decision to utilize 130.56 acres
as an Industrial area and allot industrial is even prior to
the petitioner's first writ petition in W.P.
No.64483/2009.
25. This would be a material circumstance in the
light of the petitioner's prayer in this writ petition in
W.P. No.64483/2009 and this Court's conclusion in
disposing of the writ petition. The petitioner's prayer in
this earlier writ petition, as recorded by this Court while
disposing of the petition reads as follows:
"Petitioners have sought for a direction to the
respondents to consider the representations
produced at Annexures K, M, N, P1, Q, R, X, Y,
Z7, Z13 and Z14 dated 21/03/2007,
29/03/2007, 04/04/2007, 09/05/2007,
11/06/2007, 05/07/2007, 12/09/2007,
23/01/2008, 25/02/2009, 24/01/2009 and
26/01/2009 and for further direction to allot
plots to the industrial community as resolved by
the Board in its 210th body meeting dated
03/04/1998 in subject No.23 produced at
Annexure "E", further direct respondents to cancel
the allotment made to 3rd parties."
The underlining his by this Court
26. This Court, in the light of this prayer and the
rival submissions, has categorically opined that the
petitioner who is not interested in any allotment for
itself should have, if it had any grievance against
allotment made in the year 1997, challenged the
allotment at the earliest and having not so challenged,
the petitioner's case for cancellation of the allotment
cannot be considered at a belated stage. This Court's
order in this regard reads as under:
"Be that as it may be, it is clear that the
petitioners though initially, expressed that they
were not interested in the allotment. Even now,
the prayer of the petitioners is for consideration of
their representations. If really the petitioners are
aggrieved by the allotment in the year 1997, they
should have challenged the said allotments, at
the earliest. Having not done, the contention of
the petitioners to cancel the said allotments at
this stage cannot be considered, as third parties
have incurred heavy expenditure in developing,
installing the machineries etc.
27. In view of this categorical conclusion and the
undisputed fact that the allotment in favour of each of
the private respondents in these two petitions is part of
130.56 acres, including the allotment in favour of the
private respondents in the subsequent writ petition,
cannot be impugned by the petitioner. The petitioner's
grievance that remained to be considered with the
decision of this in W.P. No.64483/2009 is with regard to
the utilization of the remaining extent viz. 111 acres for
the purposes of the housing sector and this, in the
considered opinion of this Court, is established by this
Court's later order as also the Minutes of the Meeting
held on 14.05.2013.
28. The later part of this Court's order in W.P.
No.64483/2009vreads as under:
Learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and
4/Board submits if the representations of the
petitioners are still pending, Board will consider
the same in accordance with law and take
appropriate decision in the matter.
In view of this, I find that though there is no
challenge to the allotment made to the third
parties, however the representations appears to
have been pending before respondents appears to
have been pending before respondents 3 and 4
and if such representations are pending they
should have been considered in accordance with
law by respondents 3 and 4. Accordingly,
respondents 3 and 4 are directed to consider the
representations of the petitioners in accordance
with law and take appropriate decision in the
matter as early as possible not later than three
months from the date of receipt of copy of this
order.
29. It transpires from the Minutes as recorded
that the concerned from the KIADB drew the attention
of the petitioner's Secretary to the fact that an extent
of 131 acres was allotted to various allottees and
entrustment of the preparation of a detailed project for
formation of a housing layout in the remaining 111
acres. On behalf of the petitioner, no objection was
conveyed in this regard and in fact, without raising
objection about utilization of the extent of 131 acres as
an Industrial Area, objections were raised about
allotment made in favour of the seventh respondent in
the first writ petition and a request was made for the
KIADB taking upon itself the development of the
project insofar as the 111 acres intended to be used
for the Housing Project.
30. This Court must opine that if the
petitioner's understanding was that there was any
infirmity with such bifurcation and utilization of
130.56 acres for industrial purposes and only 111
acres for the Housing Project and that liberty was
available in that regard, the petitioner should have
articulated the same in the Meeting. This Court's
finding in W.P. No.64483/2009 that the petitioner
could not challenge any allotment that were made in
the year 1997 [for the reasons stated therein] and the
petitioner's failure to articulate any grievance as
aforesaid is a giveaway. This Court must opine that
the petitioner cannot challenge any allotment insofar
as 130.56 acres after the disposal of the said petition.
31. The decision of the Union Government, and
the proposal by the KIADB as an implementing agency
to develop about 250 acres of the total extent of
2,227.70 acres as Social Infrastructure Zone with
certain amenities, is a Policy decision and conditioned
by the circumstances that prevailed while executing
the project. The petitioner, unless it demonstrate a
personal right either as an applicant or as
representing any of the applicants for allotment to a
site, cannot establish locus to challenge. The
petitioner's locus, to challenge the allotment, which is
rendered untenable for the aforesaid reason, is
rendered further tenuous and non-existent insofar as
the private respondents in the subsequent writ petition
in view of the undisputed fact that the allotment in
favour of these respondents is in accordance with the
provisions of the Karnataka Industries [Facilitation]
Act, 2002 and the decision of the division Bench in
W.A. No.3987/2019 as aforesaid. The division Bench
has held:
"In other words, when the petitioner herein was
not an applicant for the land in question under
the provisions of Facilitation Act, 2002, the
petitioner had no locus standi to invoke provisions
of Article 226 of the constitution of India to assail
the allotment of the land made to respondent
No.3, as the petitioner was not a person
aggrieved. In the circumstances, the learned
single Judge was justified in holding that the
petition was in the nature of public interest
litigation. Possibly, at that stage, the petitioner
could have sought for conversion of the said writ
petition as a public interest litigation, provided the
petitioner had no interest in the subject land.
Rather, in the form of seeking an allotment of the
very same land, but however, without making
any application under the provisions of the
Facilitation Act, 2002 for allotment of the said
land, petitioner had challenged the allotment
made to respondent No.3 herein, whereas the
land came to be allotted to respondent No.3
herein."
32. Therefore, this Court must opine that the
petitioner has no locus to challenge the allotments.
This Court is of the considered view that further
questions need not be examined. However, for
complete adjudication, it must be observed that the
allotment in favour of the private respondents in the
first writ petition is not challenged on the ground that
there is any irregularity in the allotment and this
ground is only insofar as the private respondents in
the subsequent writ petition. The allotment by the
KIADB is consequent to the approval granted by the
concerned under the Karnataka Industries
[Facilitation] Act, 2002 within the premise of the
Government's policy as discussed. Therefore the
petitioner cannot have any grievance.
33. The writ petitions stand disposed of
accordingly, and with the disposal of the petitions, the
pending applications do not survive for consideration
and hence stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AN/-
