Allowed

M/S M M Creations v. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2023WP/33981/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order cancelling allotment of an industrial site. Ruling that notice under Section 34-B of the KIADB Act is mandatory, the Court quashed the impugned order but reserved liberty to the respondent to issue notice and proceed afresh.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 28.08.2018 passed by 3rd respondent quashed; liberty reserved to respondents to issue notice and proceed according to law.

M/S M M Creations Vs Karnataka Industrial… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 33981 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 33981 OF 2018 (GM-KIADB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S. M M CREATIONS NO. 48/7, 17TH CROSS GANGONDANAHALLI NAYANDANAHALLI POST MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE - 560 039 REPRESENTED BY ASLAM PASHA AGED 52 YEARS

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. MADHU R AND SMT. GIRIJA A. S, ADVOCATES)

¶10

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

AND:

¶12

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO. 49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS "EAST WING", KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURCE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶13

THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD

¶14

¶15

WP No. 33981 of 2018

¶16

NO. 49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS "EAST WING", KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURCE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001

¶17

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO. 49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS "EAST WING", KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURCE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI B.B PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-J PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND GRANT ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT DIRECTION THE RESPONDENTS CONSEQUENTLY BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Challenging impugned order at Annexure-J dated 28.08.2018 passed by 3^rd respondent, this writ petition is filed.

¶24

Smt.Madhu.R along with Smt.Girija A.S., learned counsel for petitioner submit that under impugned order, 3^rd

¶25

¶26

WP No. 33981 of 2018

¶27

respondent has cancelled allotment of industrial site made in favour of petitioner and resumed same. However, prior to passing said order, there is no specific notice issued under Section 34-B(1 and 2) of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'KIADB Act'). Therefore, there is violation of statutory provision and impugned order would be unsustainable.

¶28

On other hand, Sri B.B.Patil, learned counsel for respondents submits that despite allotment of industrial site in year 2013, petitioner has not shown progress and therefore invocation of provision for cancellation would be justified.

¶29

Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order.

¶30

From above submission, a short question that arises for consideration is whether 'passing of impugned order without issuing notice under Section 34-B(1 and 2) of KIADB Act would be justified?

¶31

This Court in W.P.no.940/2023 disposed of on 31.01.2023, has held that issuance of notice under Section 34B(1 and 2) of KIADB Act would be mandatory and in violation of same, order for resumption would be unjustified. Said decision would fully cover facts of instant case. Hence, following:

¶32

¶33

WP No. 33981 of 2018

¶34

ORDER

¶35

Writ petition is allowed.

¶36

Impugned order at Annexure-J dated 28.08.2018 passed by respondent no.3, is quashed.

¶37

However, liberty is reserved to respondents to issue notice under Section 34-B(1 and 2) of KIADB Act and consider objections filed by petitioner, if any, and further proceed to pass appropriate orders afresh, in accordance with law.

¶38

In view of disposal of main petition, pending applications are disposed of as not surviving for considerations.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

MKM CT: BHK

M/S M M Creations v. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S M M Creations v. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandranayaka Vs Javaranayaka

Mr K M Shetty Vs Karnataka Fire & Emergency Services

Sangeetha Vs Union of India

Nagendrappa S/O Gundappa Gowda Vs Chinnappagowda S/O Manjappa Gowda

Sri.D.G.Siddanagowda Vs Pragati Krishna Gramin Bank

S. P. Kumar Vs Chief Secretary