f. Karnataka Udyog Mitra (KUM) would provide the
necessary escort services for the speedy
implementation of your project. You are requested
to inform the progress made in the implementation
of the project every quarter in the proforma.
"GOVERNMENT ORDER No. CI 73 SPI 2019,
BENGALURU, DATED: 24.07.2019
Government is pleased to accord in-principle
approval to the investment proposal of M/s Zealtech
Energy Ltd. Ltd to establish a unit for Manufacture of
"Warehouse and Logistics" with investment of Rs.
193.45 crores, generating employment to about 1600
persons at Chikkahullur Village, Hoskote Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District with the following
infrastructure assistances, incentives and concessions:
Sanction of the above infrastructure assistances,
incentives and concessions is subject to the following
terms and conditions:
1. Environment: The company to obtain Consent for
Establishment and Consent for Operation from KSPCB and
environmental clearance from MoEF, Govt. of India or the
Dept of Forest, Ecology & Environment, Govt. of Karnataka,
if applicable.
2. Employment: The Company shall comply with the
provisions of Industrial Policy of the State of Govt. of
Karnataka with respect to local employment on the project.
Prepare a plan for development of Human Resources
required for the project, train local people. A copy of Human
Resources Development plan shall be sent to the
Commissioner for Industrial Development & Director of
Industries and Commerce for monitoring.
3. Vendor Development: Wherever there is scope
for vendor development for the project, the company shall
prepare a vendor development plan, develop local vendors
and procure the required inputs, components and sub-
assemblies from these local vendor units. A copy of the
vendor development plan shall be sent to the Commissioner
for Industrial Development & Director of Industries and
Commerce for monitoring.
4. Social Infrastructure Development: The
Company is advised to take up social infrastructure
development projects in the vicinity of the proposed location
of the unit and comply with the stipulation of Company Act
2013. A copy of such projects shall be sent to the
Commissioner for Industrial Development & Director of
industries and Commerce for monitoring.
5. Others:
a. The company shall adopt rainwater harvesting,
waste water recycling and water conservation
techniques. Zero discharge facility should be
adopted wherever applicable.
b. The company shall take all statutory and other
necessary clearances from the competent
authorities including Govt. of India.
c. As part of "Ease of Doing Business" Government
vide order No. CI 89 SPI 2013, Dated: 20.12.2014
has accorded approval to operationalise e-Udyami
Phase II for obtaining various clearances /
approvals/licenses etc. through common e-platform
for the projects approved through District Level
Single Window Clearance Committee (DLSWCC) or
State Level Single Window Clearance Committee
(SLSWCC) or State High Level Clearance
Committee (SHLCC) w.e.f. 01.01.2015.
d. The approvals / NOCs of following Departments
have been covered under Phase II of e-Udyami.
i. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development
Board.
ii. Karnataka Small Scale Industries
Development Corporation.
iii. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board.
iv. Factories, Boilers, Industrial Safety and
Health Department
v. Industries and Commerce Department
vi. Town Planning Department and Local
Planning Authorities
vii. Municipal Administration Department
viii. BESCOM/GESCOM/HESCOM/CESCOM/
MESCOM
ix. Karnataka State Fire and Emergency
Services Department
x. Water Resources Department
e. The login and passwords which are used for filing
application through e-Udyami Phase I are also
applicable for filing application through e-Udyami
Phase II. E-Udyami Phase II web application may
be accessed through
www.ebizkarnataka.gov.in and online application
along with necessary documents may please be
filed for any of above Departments' approval/NOCs.
f. Karnataka Udyog Mitra (KUM) would provide the
necessary escort services for the speedy
implementation of your project. You are requested
to inform the progress made in the implementation
of the project every quarter in the proforma.
This approval is valid for a period of two years
from the date of issue of this Government Order.
By Order and in the name of the
Governor of Karnataka,
Sd/-
24/7/19.
(NAGARATHNAMMA.G)
Desk Officer (Technical Cell),
Commerce & Industries Department."
(Emphasis added)
Therefore, none of the approvals that are granted by the Board as
on to-day is in subsistence. They have expired long ago. Though
the writ petitions are filed before this Court, there is no interim
order granted in any of these cases. Therefore, the approvals stood
expired by efflux of time. As observed, the entire rights of these
petitioners for approval was dependent upon the rights of M/s P.M.
Infrastructure Private Limited. M/s P.M. Infrastructure Private
Limited had preferred Writ Petition No.47952 of 2015 connected
with Writ Petition No.11510 of 2020. The said writ petitions are
dismissed by this Court in terms of its order dated 16-03-2023 by
holding as follows:
".... .... ....
12. The afore-narrated facts, link in the chain of
events and the dates are not in dispute and, therefore, not
reiterated. The petitioner applies for allotment of 163 acres
of land for the purpose of development of an industrial park.
The Government of Karnataka promulgates the Karnataka
Industries (Facilitation) Act, 2002 and the Rules framed
there under. In terms of the said Facilitation Act a State High
Level Clearance Committee is constituted under Section 3
thereof. The relevant sections of the Act that need to be
noticed read as under:
"3. State High Level Clearance Committee.- (1)
The State Government may by notification constitute a
single point clearance committee called on State High Level
Clearance Committee under the chairmanship of the Chief
Minister consisting of such members as may be specified
therein.
(2) The Committee shall examine and consider the
proposals received from any entrepreneur relating to any
industrial and other projects to be set up in the State, with
an investment of rupees five hundred crores and above in
each case.
(3) Member of the Committee shall personally attend
the meeting and in case he is unable to attend the meeting,
he may depute a senior level officer to attend the meeting
with a written authorisation to take appropriate decision in
the meeting.
4. Functions of the Committee.- (1) The
Committee shall meet at such times and in such places and
shall adopt such procedure to transact its business as may
be prescribed.
(2) The Committee shall examine the proposals for
setting up any industrial undertakings referred to in sub
section (2) of Section 3 and shall take a decision and
communicate its decision to the entrepreneur and the
concerned departments or authorities within such time as
may be prescribed.
5. Powers of the Committee.-The Committee
shall be the final authority in granting approvals for
the projects placed before it. The approvals given by
the Committee shall be binding on all the concerned
departments or authorities and such departments or
authorities, shall issue the required clearances within
the stipulated time and subject to compliances by the
entrepreneur undertaking of the provisions of the
applicable Central or State Acts and the rules made
thereunder.
.........
8. Powers of the Committee.- The State Level
Single Window Clearance Committee shall be the final
authority in granting approvals for the projects
placed before it. The approvals given by the
Committee shall be binding on the departments or
authorities concerned and such departments or
authorities shall issue the required clearance within
the stipulated time subject to compliances by the
entrepreneurs with the provisions of the applicable
Central or State Acts or rules made thereunder."
(Emphasis supplied)
The application of the petitioner was placed before the
Facilitation Committee. The Facilitation Committee granted
an in-principle approval to the project of the petitioner and
recommended to the Board for acquisition of land of 163
acres in Sy.No.25 of Chikkahullur Village. The land had to be
acquired and then handed over to the petitioner. The cost of
acquisition was calculated at ₹65/- lakhs per acre for 109
acres and at ₹45/- lakhs per acre for the remaining 58 acres.
In terms of the said decision to acquire, the Special Land
Acquisition Officer of the Board acquires and takes
possession of 167 acres of land from the Tahsildar.
Therefore, 167 acres of land was acquired for the purpose of
allotment by the Board to the petitioner. But the land was
not allotted. The petitioner files Writ Petition No.47952 of
2015 before this Court seeking a direction to allot the land.
This Court on 06.11.2015 grants an interim order not to
consider any other application qua 163 acres of land that
was allotted in favour of the petitioner. The said interim
order is in force. During the pendency of the aforesaid
petition, the petitioner withdraws the request for allotment of
163 acres and instead sought allotment of 50 acres. The said
communication reads as follows:
"P.M. INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED
Date: 6-06-2019
To
The Managing Director,
Karnataka Udyoga Mitra,
Khanija Bhavan,
Bangalore-560 001.
Without Prejudice
Sir,
Sub: Project proposal to establish integrated Industrial
& Warehouse Park, Infrastructure at Sy.No.25,
Chikkahullur Village, KasabaHobli, Hoskote Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
(Request for considering our case for grant of
extension of time for the implementation of the
project.)
--
1. You are aware that as per the proceedings of the
State High Level Clearance Committee meeting
held on 24.05.2010, clearance was granted to
our project as per the Government Order
No.CI213SPI2010 dated 2-06 2010 read with
Corrigendum bearing even number dated
16-07-2010.
2. We had filed W.P.No.47952 of 2015 before the
Hon'ble high Court of Karnataka seeking a writ of
mandamus to allot an extent of 163 acres in
Sy.No.25 of Chikkahullaru Village, Kasaba Hobli,
Hoskote Taluk.
3. In view of the passage of time and business
considerations, we do not want to lose
further time which would adversely affect
our interests. We thought of approaching
your goodselves, if an amicable settlement
could be arrived at out of Court so that if
KIADB allots us 50 acres of compact,
continuous, free from litigation extent which
is not reserved for any other purpose, we
would be ready and willing to withdraw our
Writ Petition.
4. We, therefore, request you to consider our
case favourably and direct the KIADB to
allot 50 acres of land adjoining to the land
belongs to the Department of Astrophysics
facing towards road SH-82 in our favour as
per the sketch enclosed. If the KIADB allots
the said extent of 50 acres of land, we will
not press for allotment of 163 acres of land.
Thanking you
Yours faithfully,
For P M Infrastructure Private Limited."
(Emphasis added)
The communication was that the Committee had cleared the
project of the petitioner on 2-06-2010; the writ petition was
pending consideration and in view of passage of time, the
petitioner did not want to lose further time which would
adversely affect its interest and, therefore, a request was
made to favourably allot 50 acres of land adjoining the land
belonging to Astrophysics. If 50 acres is allotted, it was the
case of the petitioner that it would not press for allotment of
163 acres of land. Based upon this request the matter was
again placed before the Committee. On 14-06-2019 the
Committee cleared the proposal of the petitioner for
allotment of 50 acres instead of 163 acres and recommended
as follows:
"Recommendation of 63rd LAC meeting held on
14.06.2019
The representatives of the Company appeared before the
Committee and explained that they have reduced the extent
of land to 50 acres for the reasons explained in the
representation as above, but all other project parameters
remains the same. They have requested for allotment of 50
acres of land and extension of time by 2 years to implement
the project. They have agreed to provide necessary
undertaking to KIADB for the same.
The Committee noted the above and after detailed
discussions recommended to SLSWCC for allotment of 50
acres of land for the project at Chikkahullur Village, Hoskote
Taluk, Bangalore Rural District and extension of time by 2
years to implement the project."
It was a clear case where the petitioner gave up 163 acres
and sought allotment of 50 acres. Therefore, the right of the
petitioner extinguished insofar as it concerned 163 acres and
was yet to be crystallized in the case of 50 acres. The
Committee again approved the project of the petitioner and
recommended to the Board to allot 50 acres of land. It is in
furtherance of the recommendation to allot the land by the
Facilitation Committee, the impugned demand notice is
issued.
13. Prior to issuing of the impugned demand notice,
the cost was worked out in favour of the petitioner to be at
₹142.25 lakhs per acre notwithstanding the fact that the
sub-Committee under the Facilitation Act had recommended
at ₹111/- lakhs per acre. The Board owing to the cost of
acquisition, development and other charges later revised the
amount payable per acre to ₹2/- crores. After the demand
was made at ₹2/- crores per acre, the petitioner goes back
and seeks to put the clock back by withdrawing the letter
dated 6.06.2019 and seeking allotment of 163 acres of land
on the ground that the earlier withdrawal was without
prejudice to its rights. This was not acceded to by the Board.
The situation then emerges is the petitioner lost 163 acres
for it withdrawing its request and did not get 50 acres as it
did not make payment of ₹2/- crores per acre, but wants to
get back to 163 acres request on the ground that it is
without prejudice.
14. If the petitioner wants 50 acres of land in terms of
what is requested and if the Board is willing to allot, it cannot
be at the terms when the allotment was initially
recommenced in the year 2010. The latest recommendation
is on 02-12-2020, 10 years after the initial recommendation,
if the petitioner wants to stick to his stand with regard to the
earlier allotment 10 years ago and the demand ₹111/- lakhs
per acre, 10 years ago, it would not be entitled to allotment
by the Board as the KIADB Act, Rules and Regulations all
point at one solitary factor that the allottee will have to pay
the cost of allotment at the time of allotment.
15. The contention of the learned senior counsel
for the petitioner that the petitioner is left with neither
163 acres nor 50 acres and, therefore, the action
should be quashed is unacceptable, since the situation
is brought out not by the action of the Board but by
the act of the petitioner itself who wants to say that it
is giving up the claim for 163 acres and sought
allotment of 50 acres. On allotment of 50 acres being
made, it again changed its stand to contend that it be
allotted 163 acres. For allotment of 163 acres or 50
acres, the petitioner as on date, in the passage of 13
years, not made a single rupee of payment is made
either in terms of the Government Order or Demand
Letter. This is an admitted fact. For 13 years, the
petitioner held on to the land that was allotted to him
from 2010, initially and from 2015, on the strength of
an interim order.
16. If the petitioner is interested in making
payment and securing 50 acres it would be a
circumstance altogether different. The petitioner does
not even canvas that, but contends it wants the
reduced price to be given as is granted to other
allottees. The parallel that the learned senior counsel
would seek to draw is in the case of Favorich Infra
Private Limited is misplaced, as according to the
Board, Favourich Infra Private limited was a bulk
allottee. In the case of bulk allotment it is always open
to the Board to consider reduction of price. The
petitioner's case is not a case of bulk allotment. Even
today if the petitioner wants to take the land at `2/-
crores per acre the Board would allot the same. But,
the petitioner does not want it at that price. If the
narration of the facts and the approbation and the
reprobation of the petitioner is noticed, he would not
deserve any indulgence at the hands of this Court.
Since 2010 the petitioner is contending that it should
be allotted at a particular price. The same is not
allotted. In 2015 he knocks at the doors of this Court
in the companion petition, seeks a direction for
allotment. Several proceedings take place during the
pendency of the petition. The allotment could not go
forward as there was an interim order operating. The
petitioner then begins to blow hot and cold,
withdrawing the request for 163 acres; placing a
request for 50 acres; when 50 acres was allotted,
withdrawing the request for cancellation of the
request of 163 acres. In all these obfuscatory attitude
of the petitioner, not a single rupee goes into the
coffers of the Board. Therefore, there is no warrant to
entertain these petitions."
(Emphasis supplied)
The right of these petitioners were entirely dependent upon the
right of M/s P.M. Infrastructure Private Limited. This Court has held
that M/s P.M. Infrastructure Private Limited itself did not have any
right as it had long extinguished though the petitioner therein had
made certain payments towards allotment. The said judgment is
tossed before the Division Bench. The Division Bench has passed
certain orders. The said orders read as follows:
Dated 02.05.2023
"Learned AGA is requested to accept notice for
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Sri. Kiran V Ron, learned counsel
appears for Respondent No.3. Sri B B Patil, learned Panel
Counsel is requested to accept notice for Respondent No.4.
Till next date of hearing, no allotment shall be
made in respect of the subject land. Whether this
reprieve should continue, shall be considered on the
next date of hearing.
This order shall not be released till after the Office
Objections are complied with."
(Emphasis supplied)
Dated 04.03.2024
"Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Udaya Holla appears for
the appellant and learned Advocate General appears for
respondents No.1 and 2-State.
Stand over to 21.03.2024.
Interim order earlier passed by the Court shall
continue till the next date of hearing."
Dated 21.03.2024
"Stand over to 03.06.2024.
Interim order granted earlier shall continue to operate
till the next date of hearing."
Dated 03.06.2024
"Stand over to 10.07.2024.
Interim order granted earlier shall continue to operate till
the next date of hearing."
Dated 10.7.2024
"Stand over to 16.07.2024.
Interim order granted earlier shall continue to operate till
the next date."
Dated 16.07.2024
"Re-notify on 11.09.2024.
Interim order, if any, shall continue till the next date of
hearing."
Dated 11.09.2024
"Learned counsel for the parties shall file their written
submissions along with the judgments they want to rely upon.
Re-notify on 21.10.2024.
Interim order, if any, to continue till the next date of
hearing."
Dated 21.10.2024
"At request, list on 28.10.2024.
Interim order granted earlier is extended till next date of
hearing."
Dated 28.10.2024
"At the request of learned Advocate General
Sri.Shashikiran to get instructions with regard to offer made by
learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, list on 04.11.2024.
The proposal of learned Senior Counsel Sri.Udaya
Holla is that they would be satisfied if 50 acres of land
SUC instead of 160 acres which is available is considered
for allotment.
Interim order granted earlier is extended till the next date
of hearing."
(Emphasis supplied)
Dated 05.11.2024
"Learned senior counsel Sri.Shashikiran Shetty
appearing for respondent No.4-KIADB submits that, the
matter regarding allotment of 50 acres under SUC to the
appellant would be placed before the Board in the next
Meeting, which is scheduled to be held either during the
last week of November or during the first week of
December, 2024.
Submission of the learned senior counsel is placed on
record.
List this appeal on 09.12.2024.
Interim order granted earlier is extended till the next date
of hearing."
(Emphasis supplied)
Dated 09.12.2024
"Learned senior counsel Sri.K.Shashikiran Shetty
appearing on behalf of respondent No.4-KIADB submits
that the Board has not met, in view of the fact that they
are participating in Global Investors Meet. Further, he
submits that, on the next date of Board Meeting, the very
subject would be listed and decision would be taken.
List this appeal during the second week of January, 2025.
Interim order granted earlier is extended till the next date
of hearing."
(Emphasis supplied)
Dated 13.01.2025
"Mr.K.Shashikiran Shetty, learned Advocate General
states that, the decision regarding allotment is yet to be
taken by the Board of the KIADB.
At his request, re-notify on 18.02.2025.
Interim order if any, to continue till the next date of
hearing."
(Emphasis supplied)
The matter is being adjourned from time to time on the score that
the Board is yet to take a decision on the application of the
petitioner therein. What is to be noticed is the writ petitions of M/s
P.M. Infrastructure Private Limited, which have been dismissed,
notwithstanding certain payments being made towards allotment.
Therefore, M/s P.M. Infrastructure Private Limited had some
semblance of right. The right of these petitioners in the case at
hand is inchoate or still born. Therefore, these petitions which have
been filed seeking a direction would not merit any consideration.
12. In the light of no right of the petitioners being taken
away, the petitions lacking any merit, stand rejected.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
nvj
CT:SS
