Industrial plot allotment: petitioner scored highest marks for Plot No.16 but the Deputy Commissioner allotted it to respondent No.6, a woman entrepreneur who had applied only for Plot No.11, without any women's quota. The court held this arbitrary and quashed Subject No.6 of the proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.200771 OF 2015 (GM-KSSIDC)
BETWEEN:
RAJKUMAR S/O VITHAL KANASE, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O M/S.BHARAT STEEL WORKS, STATION BACK ROAD, DEVGIRI WEIGH BRIDGE, BIJAPUR-586 101.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.D.P.AMBEKAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by VARSHA N RASALKAR Location: High Court Of Karnataka
NC: 2024:KHC-K:526 WP No. 200771 of 2015
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL., HCGP FOR R1 AND R4; SRI. SIDDALING REDDY PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHAITANYAKUMAR CHANDRIKI., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. RATNA.N.SHIVAYOGIMATH., ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. SACHIN.M.MAHAJAN., ADVOCATE FOR R6; R3 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri.D.P.Ambekar., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Veeranagouda Malipatil., learned HCGP for respondents 1 & 4, Sri.Siddaling Reddy Patil., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Chaitanyakumar Chandriki., for respondent No.2, Smt.Ratna N.Shivayogimath., learned counsel for respondent No.5 and
Sri.Sachin M.Mahajan., learned counsel for respondent No.6 have appeared in person.
Emergent notice to respondent No.3 was ordered on 19.01.2015. A perusal of the office note depicts that respondent No.3 has neither engaged any advocate nor conducted the case as party in person. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass orders on the merits of the case.
2. The brief facts are these:
It is stated that the petitioner is running a micro/ manufacturing unit at Vijayapura, wherein he is manufacturing tractor trailers and agricultural equipments. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-President, District Level Single Window Committee, Vijayapura on 23.08.2014 called for applications for allotment of industrial plots including two plots viz., plot No.11 and plot No.16 at Industrial Area, Bijapur. The petitioner along with others applied for being granted Plot No.16. The respondents 5 and 6 both applied for grant of Plot No.11. The Screening Committee scrutinized the said Forms received for Plot Nos.11 and 16 and awarded 45 marks to the petitioner, which was the highest amongst the applicants for Plot No.16
and further recommended the name of the petitioner for being allotted Plot No.16. Similarly, amongst the applicants for Plot No.11, the name of respondent No.5 was recommended for allotment of Plot No.11 as he had secured 52 marks as against 40 marks obtained by respondent No.6.
As things stood thus, the third and fourth respondents did not accept the recommendation of the Screening Committee and instead, vide Subject No.6 in the proceedings held on 19.11.2014, awarded Plot No.11 to respondent No.5 and Plot No.16 to respondent No.6, though she had not even asked for the same. The petitioner issued legal notice to the respondents through his counsel. The respondents did not heed to the same. Aggrieved of the action of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner has filed the captioned Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Sri.D.P.Ambekar., learned counsel for the petitioner in presenting his arguments strenuously urged that the petitioner applied for Plot No.16 and respondents 5 and 6 both applied for
allotment of Plot No.11. He argued by saying that the respondent No.6 has not applied for allotment of Plot No.16, however, the Deputy Commissioner allotted Plot No.16 to respondent No.6 saying that she is a woman entrepreneur. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the action on the part of the Deputy Commissioner, is unsustainable in law.
By way of reply to this contention, Sri.Sachin M.Mahajan., learned counsel for respondent No.6 justified the action of the Deputy Commissioner. He argued by saying that respondent No.6 is a woman entrepreneur and the petitioner is a manufacturer of tractor and trailer, hence, taking note of the same, the Deputy Commissioner has allotted Plot No.16 to respondent No.6, hence, the petitioner cannot have any grievance. Accordingly, he submits that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed.
Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.
the Writ Petition and the same is marked as Annexure-D. A perusal of the same would reveal that Subject No.6 relates to
the allotment of Plot Nos.11 and 16 and Plot No.11 is allotted to respondent No.5, whereas plot No.16 came to be allotted to respondent No.6 solely on the ground that she is a woman entrepreneur. The reason accorded for the allotment of Plot No.16 to respondent No.6 is untenable. The reason is apparent. There was no reservation for women, a separate quota that was reserved and kept aside for women. The Deputy Commissioner ought to have considered the allotment of Plot No.16 to the petitioner as he had secured highest marks. If at all the Deputy Commissioner was to allot any plot to respondent No.6, he ought to have allotted alternative plot in favor of respondent No.6 instead of plot No.16. Furthermore, respondent No.6 had not even asked for allotment of Plot No.16. On the contrary, she and respondent No.5 applied for allotment of Plot No.11. This aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Deputy Commissioner. I may venture to say that the Deputy Commissioner has failed to have regard for relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters.
For the reasons stated above, the impugned proceedings held on 19.11.2014 vide ¸ÀA:©eɹ/fPÉÊPÉÃ/EJACgï/ªÀUÀ¸À/£ÀqÀĪÀ½/2014-15 in
so far as Subject No.6 liable to be quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed.
bearing No. ¸ÀA:©eɹ/fPÉÊPÉÃ/EJACgï/ªÀUÀ¸À/£ÀqÀĪÀ½/2014-15 is quashed.
6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
Sd/JUDGE
VNR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20
2 issues framed by the court
Whether allotment of Plot No.16 to respondent No.6 without her application, disregarding highest marks, was valid.
Whether the proceedings dated 19.11.2014 (Subject No.6) should be quashed.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajkumar S/O Vithal Kanase
The State of Karnataka
Assistant General Manager, Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation
Joint Director, District Industrial Centre, Vijayapura
Deputy Commissioner cum President District Level Single Window Committee, Vijayapura
Dayalal K. Patel
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
