Disposed

M/S Rangoli Digitals v. the Karnataka State Level

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2022WP/57807/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash proceedings regarding allotment ratification dismissed. Court relegated parties to the appellate authority where the petitioner's appeal remains pending, directing the authority to decide within three months. Writ petition disposed of by rule absolute.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; parties relegated to 1st respondent to address grievance in pending appeal; Rule made absolute.

M/S Rangoli Digitals Vs the Karnataka State Level — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.57807/2014 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S RANGOLI DIGITALS A PROPRIETORY CONCERN, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SHOP NO.3 W.1.20/5, 6.7, BEJAI CHURCH CROSS ROAD, MANGALORE AND FACTORY AT C2 SHED, YEYYADI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MANGALORE-575004 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPERIETOR MR.RAGHUVEER NAYAK.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1 . THE KARNATAKA STATE LEVEL SINGLE WINDOW CLEARNACE COMMITTEE, NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN, 3RD FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-546001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶12

2 . THE DISTRICT LEVEL SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE COMMITTEE, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, NEAR STATE BANK OF INDIA, MANGAURU-575001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶13

¶14

3 . THE KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560044. REPRSENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶15

4 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, YEYYADI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MANGALURU-575008.

¶16

5 . M/S SPECTRUM INDUSTRIES C-14 & 15, YEYYADI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MANGALURU-575008, REPRESENTED BY IT PROPRIETOR, MR.JEEVAN SALDANHA.

¶17

6 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, NEAR STATE BANK OF INDIA, MANGALURU-575001.

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. SHIVANAND D.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. LAKSHMI S. HOLLA, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. PUNDIKAI ISHWAR BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R5; R4 AND R6 ARE SERVED)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R-2 THE DISTRICT LEVEL SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE COMMITTEE, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, HELD ON 24.11.2014, IN RESPECT OF ITEM NO.1 RATIFICATION OF MINUTES OF MEETING DTD.2.7.2014 AT ANNEX-P1 (ITEM NO.8) TO THE W.P .

¶21

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petitioner in this petition is seeking to quash

¶25

the proceedings of 2^nd respondent-The District Level Single Window Clearance Committee (“DLSWCC”), Dakshina Kannada District, Mangaluru, held on 24/11/2004 in respect of item No.1 – ratification of minutes of meeting dated 02/07/2014 vide

¶26

Annexure – P1.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the parties to the

¶28

lis.

¶29

Learned counsel, Sri. Abhinav .R for the

¶30

petitioner would submit that the petitioner during the year 2008, the 3^rd respondent – Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation Limited (“KSSIDC”) allotted stray shed in various industrial estates and the petitioner was allotted C2 shed

¶31

¶32

situated at Yeyyadi Industrial Estate, Mangalore by the 2^nd respondent-DLSWCC and shockingly, on 27/01/2009 the 2^nd respondent-DLSWCC set aside the allotment of C2 shed to the petitioner, challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.7964/2009 wherein this Court ordered the 2^nd respondent -DLSWCC to reconsider the matter of the petitioner for allotment of C2 shed and after reconsideration, 2^nd respondentDLSWCC, on 04/03/2010, allotted C2 shed in favour of the petitioner. This resolution was passed after discussion in the presence of the petitioner, Jeevan Saldanha of M/s.Spectrum Industries and others. Accordingly allotment letter was issued by the 3^rd respondent - KSSIDC and registered absolute sale deed was executed subsequently. Later, it is submitted that the 5^th respondent- M/s.Spectrum Industries challenged the re-allotment made in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.19100/2010 (Annexure –

¶33

¶34

D) which was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the 2^nd and 3^rd respondent for reconsideration. It is the contention of the petitioner that, on remand of W.P.No.19100/2010 a meeting was held at the 2^nd respondent-DLSWCC on 23/04/2014, 30/04/2014 and 04/06/2014 in relation to the allotment of C2 shed, the petitioner and other applicants were called to make their respective representations, the petitioner was also asked to give his views about the allotment of marks which was given by the screening committee in the year 2008. It was found that the petitioner was not allotted 10 marks in the category of “Weightage Product Produce” though the petitioner was entitled for the same. The petitioner gave his detailed representation on 08/05/2014 wherein he reasoned out as to why the petitioner is entitled for 10 marks under the category of “Weightage Product Produce”, but the explanation of the petitioner was not

¶35

¶36

considered by the 2^nd respondent-DLSWCC. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1^st respondent – KSLSWCC challenging the resolution of 2^nd respondent – DLSWCC dated 24/11/2014 ratifying the resolution dated 02/07/2014 in relation to item No.8 i.e., the resolution relating to allotment of the C2 shed in favour of 5^th respondent – M/s. Spectrum Industries. The 2^nd Respondent failed to appreciate that the proceeding in relation to item No.8 could not have undertaken in view of the order of the 1^st respondent directing status quo of the C2 shed allotment. The matter pertaining to the allotment of C2 shed was listed as item No.8 and on account of the communication of 1^st respondent to maintain status quo, the resolution relating to allotment of C2 shed was not ratified.

¶37

It is the contention of the learned counsel

¶38

for the petitioner that though the appeal was

¶39

¶40

preferred before the 1^st respondent – KSLSWCC challenging the resolution passed by 2^nd respondent – DLSWCC dated 24/11/2014 and as the petitioner learnt that the appeal would not be taken by the appellate authority 1^st respondent as all the members of the 1^st respondent were not available in the headquarters, the present writ petition was filed before this Court in view of ratifying the resolution relating to allotment of C2 shed. The learned counsel would submit that the petitioner could be relegated back to the 1^st respondent and the appeal preferred by the petitioner could be considered by the 1^st respondent in accordance with law.

¶41

At this stage, learned counsel Sri. Pundikai Ishwar Bhat appearing for the 5^th respondent would contend that in view of the appeal having already been filed before the 1^st respondent it would be proper directing the parties to approach the 1^st respondent

¶42

¶43

wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending consideration.

¶44

The said submission of the learned counsel

¶45

for the parties is placed on record.

¶46

In light of the submissions made by the

¶47

learned counsel for the parties, the parties are relegated to the appellate authority-1^st respondent to address their grievance and the Rule is made absolute.

¶48

For the reasons stated supra, this Court pass the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(i) The petitioner is relegated to the 1^st respondent – KSLSWCC where the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending consideration.

¶51

¶52

(ii) All the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties kept open to be urged before the 1^st respondent-KSLSWCC.

¶53

(iii) The interim order shall continue till the disposal of the appeal before the 1^st respondent-KSLSWCC and 1^st respondent shall decide the appeal filed on 05/12/2014 by the petitioner on its merits and in accordance with law, within the time frame of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶54

(iv) The parties to cooperate in disposal of the appeal as directed.

¶55

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed

¶56

of.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

M/S Rangoli Digitals v. the Karnataka State Level

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Rangoli Digitals v. the Karnataka State Level

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harish Patkar Vs Bengaluru Mahanagara Transport Corporation (Bmtc)

Sangeetha Khanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Panduranga Vs the Director of Scheduled Tribe

Mahadevappa Vs Abida Bhanu

M/S Ramananda Gas Agency Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Reshma Naveen Vs the State of Karnataka