Disposed¶37

Tekarch Technology Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2025WP/11004/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KIADB land allotment mandamus; DLSWCC approval dated 04.11.2019; 2 acres in Hi-Tech Defence & Aerospace Park, Devanahalli Industrial Area Phase-1; Karnataka Udyog Mitra application; representations Annexures C, D, E left unconsidered; disposal with direction to consider representations and pass orders in accordance with law within 8 weeks; writ petition under Articles 226 and 227; Tekarch Technology Pvt. Ltd.; Justice M. Nagaprasanna; NC: 2025:KHC:15054.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 (KIADB) to consider the representations at Annexures 'C', 'D' and 'E' and pass necessary orders in accordance with law within an outer limit of 8 weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; the petition otherwise stood disposed. ¶37

Tekarch Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.2 (KIADB) should be directed by writ of mandamus to consider the petitioner's written representations dated 20.12.2021 (Annexure-C), 15.01.2025 (Annexure-D) and 05.04.2025 (Annexure-E) seeking allotment of 2 acres of land as approved by the DLSWCC. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

The Court disposed of the petition by directing respondent No.2 – the Board (KIADB) – to consider the petitioner's representations at Annexures 'C', 'D' and 'E' and pass necessary orders in accordance with law, within an outer limit of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, if not earlier.

¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Tekarch Technology Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and others, Writ Petition No. 11004 of 2025 (GM-KIADB), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, decided on 08-04-2025 by M. Nagaprasanna, J. The petitioner, whose application to respondent No.3 (Karnataka Udyog Mitra) had resulted in DLSWCC approval on 04.11.2019 for allotment of 2 acres in the Hi-Tech Park, Defence and Aerospace Park, Devanahalli Industrial Area (Phase-1), complained that the Board (KIADB, respondent No.2) had made no allotment and had failed to consider its repeated representations (Annexures C, D and E). Filed under Articles 226 and 227, the petition prayed for mandamus directing the Board to consider the representations and to allot the 2-acre plot in conformity with the DLSWCC clearance. Counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that, given reasonable time, the representations would be considered in terms of the DLSWCC approval. Disposing of the petition, the Court directed respondent No.2 to consider the representations and pass necessary orders in accordance with law within eight weeks.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:15054 WP No. 11004 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 11004 OF 2025 (GM-KIADB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

TEKARCH TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD., NO.92/2, 11^TH CROSS EX-SERVICEMEN ST. VENKATAPPA LAYOUT, MS NAGAR POST, KAMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 500 033 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, SRI DHANANJAYA L., AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 4^TH FLOOR, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:15054 WP No. 11004 of 2025

¶17

MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶18

KARNATAKA UDYOG MITRA, NO. 49, 3^RD FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN (EAST WING), RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R-1; SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO CONSIDER THE WRITTEN REPRESENTATION DATED 20.12.2024 AT ANNEXURE-C, REPRESENTATION DATED 15.01.2025 AT ANNEXURE-D AND REPRESENTATION DATED 05.04.2025 AT ANNEXURE-E SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING ALLOTMENT OF 2 ACRE LAND AS APPROVED BY THE DLSWCC, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶26

prayer:

¶27

“a] Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to consider the written representation dated 20.12.2021 at Annexure-C, representation dated 15.01.2025 at Annexure-D and representation dated 05.04.2025 at Annexure-E submitted by the Petitioner seeking allotment of 2 acre land as approved by the DLSWCC, under the facts and circumstances of the case;

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:15054 WP No. 11004 of 2025

¶30

b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to allot 2 acre land in Hi-Tech, Defence & Aerospace Park at Devanahalli Industrial Area (PHASE - I) in conformity with the clearance given by the DLSWCC, under the facts and circumstances of the case; and

¶31

c) Issue any appropriate writ, order or orders or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit to grant, under the facts and circumstances of this case.”

¶32

Heard Sri Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Mohammed Jaffar Shah, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri B.B.Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶33

The petitioner files an application before the 3^rd respondent – Karnataka Udyog Mitra for allotment of a plot to set up an industry. It transpires that on 04.11.2019, the District Level Single Window Clearance Committee (for short ‘DLSWCC’) after considering the application of the petitioner grants approval for allotment of 2 acres of land in Hi-Tech Park, Defence and Aerospace Park, Devanahalli Industrial Area (Phase-1). After the said allotment, the Board has not allotted any plot to the petitioner and the representations of the petitioner galore for such allotment. The representations

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15054 WP No. 11004 of 2025

¶35

having not considered by the respondents, has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

¶36

Sri B.B.Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that if reasonable time is granted, the representations of the petitioner would be considered in terms of approval of the DLSWCC and appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with law.

¶37

In that light, I deem it appropriate to dispose the petition, directing respondent No.2 - Board to consider the representations at Annexures ‘C’ ‘D’ and ‘E’ and pass necessary orders in accordance with law, within an outer limit of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not earlier.

¶38

With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed .

¶39

Ordered accordingly.

¶40

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶41

NVJ

¶42

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13

Tekarch Technology Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tekarch Technology Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Arunaa Raavi Vs State Bank of India

Mr Ganesha @ Gani Vs the Chief Superintendent Prison

Keshava M K Vs the Authorized Officer State Bank of India

Mohammed Saleem Vs Canara Bank

Sri R Madhusudhan Vs the Bank of Baroda

Sri. Srikanta Upadhyay, Vs Icici Bank Ltd.