Sri. Lakshmi Venkateshwara Marbles v. the State of Karnataka
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging notices under Section 34-B of the KIAD Act. Directing the Board to first consider the petitioner's request for a change of line of activity before issuing a specific notice under Section 34-B(2).
What did the court decide?
Petitioner directed to consider the request for change of line of activity before issuing specific notice under Section 34-B(2) of KIAD Act.
What the court decided
- 1 -
WP No. 21566 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO.21566 OF 2018 (GM-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
SRI. LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA MARBLES, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. S. RAJAGOPAL, S/O LATE S. GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. VIDHAYANGAR, B.H. ROAD, TUMKUR - 572 102.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.R.RAJAGOPAL, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.N. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
- THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings under Section 34-B of KIAD Act are illegal without considering representation for change of line of activity.
Whether a specific notice under Section 34-B(2) of KIAD Act was issued to the petitioner enumerating violations.
Whether the petitioner's request for change of line of activity should be considered before issuing the final notice under the Act.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Sri. Lakshmi Venkateshvara Marbles
- respondent
The State of Karnataka
- respondent
The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board
- respondent
The Development Officer & Executive Engineer, KIADB
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Karnataka HC
- Decided on
- · March
- Registered
- Case no.
- WP/21566/2018
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court