[Writ Petition respondent KIADB sought penalty on petitioner for failing to utilize allotted industrial plot. Per High Court of Karnataka due to absence of reasons in impugned order. Order remanded.
Order dated 07.05.2020 and demand notice dated 18.05.2020 set aside; matter remanded to respondent authority.
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 AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4582 OF 2022 (GM-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
SRI. H. ANANTHAKUMAR S/O. HANUMANATHAIAH K. AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS PROPRIETOR M/S. MARUTHI GARMENTS BATAWADI CIRCLE BUS STOP TUMAKURU
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE) AND:
Digitally signed by REKHA R
Location: High Court of Karnataka
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUDHINDRA B.S., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
APPROPRIATE WRIT/DIRECTION, SETTING ASIDE THE DEMAND MADE BY THE RESPONDENT BOARD TO THE PETITIONER TO MAKE PAYMENT OF PENALTY AMOUNT OF RS.6,80,000/- MADE VIDE ANNEXURE-G.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 07.05.2020 passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent - Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board by which the petitioner was called upon to pay 10% of the penalty in a sum of Rs.5,68,515/on the premise of petitioner not implementing the project
despite giving six months additional period.
by virtue of possession certificate as per Annexure-B, petitioner has been allotted with an industrial plot. Pursuant to the same, a lease cum sale agreement was also entered into. That petitioner was required to utilize the plot by putting up buildings and structures thereof
after obtaining prior approval from the respondentauthority. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that plot which was allotted to the petitioner did not have basic amenities and access to the plot and therefore, the petitioner could not utilize the same. That though the same was brought to the notice of the respondentAuthority, no action has been taken, except extending the time period. In such circumstance, the petitioner could not utilize the plot and consequently, the allotment of the plot has been cancelled and taken away and is allotted to a third party. However, without there being any enquiry and without even considering the case of the petitioner, respondent-authorities have passed the impugned order imposing the penalty in a sum of Rs.5,68,515/-. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:30752 WP No. 4582 of 2022
responded to the same nor has he appeared before the enquiry. That apart, paper publication was also taken calling upon the petitioner to respond. Since the petitioner deliberately remained absent, the impugned order was passed.
NC: 2024:KHC:30752 WP No. 4582 of 2022
utilization of the plot, however, the petitioner has his own version of not being able to utilize the plot, namely, non accessibility and lack of amenities provided to the plot.
"�ೕಲ�ಂಡ �ಷಯ ಮತು� ಉ�ೆ�ೕಖ�ೆ� ಸಂಬಂ��ದಂ�ೆ, ವಸಂತನರ ಾಪ#ರ �ೈ%ಾ&�ಾ ಪ'(ೇಶ 1+ೇ ಹಂತ -.ೇಶನ ಸಂ/ೆ0 151ರ ಹಂ2�ೆ%ೆ ಸಂಬಂ3�ದಂ�ೆ ¢:07.05.2020 ರಂದು 4ಾನ0 �ಇಓ&ಇಎ9. �ೆಐಎ<=, >ೆಂಗಳAರು ರವರು Bೊರ<�ರುವ ಆ(ೇಶದ ಪ'EಯನುF ಲಗE�ಸ�ಾG(ೆ ."
Court is of the view that the same requires to be set aside. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) Order dated 07.05.2020 and the demand notice dated 18.05.2020 at Annexure-F are set aside.
ii) The matter is remanded to respondentauthority.
iii) Petitioner is at liberty to submit his response within thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Respondentauthority shall thereafter upon personal hearing and affording an opportunity, shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law adverting the specific terms of the agreement, which according to them have been breached, within outer limit of three months thereafter.
of.
Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE
MDS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order imposing penalty for non-utilization of allotted industrial plot is sustainable in law being devoid of assigned reasons.
Whether the petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing and specific reference to breached terms before the penalty was imposed.
Whether the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens or principles of natural justice require remand of the matter to the respondent authority for fair adjudication.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. H. Ananthakumar
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board
M.G.S. Kamal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
