Dismissed¶67

M/S Ji Hazoor v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2025WP/12665/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KIADB; Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board; GM-KIADB; WP No. 12665 of 2017; WP No. 12425 of 2017; WP No. 14357 of 2017; Article 226 Constitution of India; Articles 226 & 227; writ of certiorari; quashing of KIADB orders dated 08.02.2017 (Nos. KA.KAI.PRA.A.MAM/A.A&KAA.A-2/2644/2016-17 and A2/2650/2016-17) and 15.03.2017 (No. 3040/2016-17); petitions dismissed as infructuous on counsel's submission; pending I.As. disposed of; IPIP Industrial Area 2nd Block Whitefield; Corporation No. 522 Site No. 95; Ji Hazoor; Kritunga Restaurant; Southern Spices; State of Karnataka; Suraj Govindaraj J.; decision date 12-03-2025; NC: 2025:KHC:10426.

What did the court decide?

None — all three petitions dismissed as having become infructuous; pending I.As. disposed of as not surviving for consideration. ¶67

M/S Ji Hazoor Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:10426 WP No. 12665 of 2017 C/W WP No. 12425 of 2017 AND 1 OTHER

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 12665 OF 2017 (GM-KIADB)

¶8

C/W

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 12425 OF 2017 (GM-KIADB) WRIT PETITION NO. 14357 OF 2017 (GM-KIADB)

¶10

IN WP No. 12665/2017 (GM-KIADB)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

M/S JI HAZOOR HAVING ITS BUSINESS AT CORPORATION NO.522, SITE NO.95 IPIP INDUSTRIAL AREA, 2^ND BLOCK, WHITE FIELD, BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR SRI. ANMOL SAIGAL

¶13

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI. BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE)

¶15

…PETITIONER

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶18

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶19

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:10426 WP No. 12665 of 2017 C/W WP No. 12425 of 2017 AND 1 OTHER

¶22

BOARD

¶23

49, 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1;

¶26

SRI. ASHOK N NAYAK FOR R2)

¶27

THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DATED 08.02.2017 BEARING NO. KA.KAI.PRA.A.MAM/A.A&KAA.A-2/2644/2016-17 VIDE ANNEXA.

¶28

IN WP NO. 12425/2017 (GM-KIADB)

¶29

BETWEEN:

¶30

M/S KRITUNGA RESTAURANT HAVING ITS BUSINESS AT CORPORATION NO. 522, SITE NO. 95 IPIP INDUSTRIAL AREA 2^ND BLOCK, WHITE FIELD BANGALORE - 560 066.

¶31

REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR T. SHARATHKUMAR REDDY.

¶32

...PETITIONER

¶33

(BY SRI. BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE)

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10426 WP No. 12665 of 2017 C/W WP No. 12425 of 2017 AND 1 OTHER

¶35

AND:

¶36

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶37

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD #49, 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVANA RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶38

...RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. ASHOK N NAYAK FOR R2)

¶40

THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DATED 08.02.2017 BEARING NO. KA.KAI.PRA.A.MAM/A.A&KAA.A2/2650/2016-17 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶41

IN WP NO. 14357/2017 (GM-KIADB)

¶42

BETWEEN:

¶43

M/S SOUTHERN SPICES HAVING ITS BUSINESS AT CORPORATION NO. 522, SITE NO. 95 IPIP INDUSTRIAL AREA 2^ND BLOCK, WHITEFIELD BANGALORE – 560 066.

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:10426 WP No. 12665 of 2017 C/W WP No. 12425 of 2017 AND 1 OTHER

¶45

¶46

REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR SRI. B. RAMPRASAD

¶47

...PETITIONER

¶48

(BY SRI. BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE)

¶49

AND:

¶50

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA

¶51

AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶52

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD # 49, 4^TH & 5^TH FLOOR KHANIJA BHAVANA RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶53

...RESPONDENTS

¶54

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1;

¶55

SRI. ASHOK N NAYAK FOR R2)

¶56

THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY R-2 DATED 15.03.2017 AT BEARING NO. KA.KAI.PRA.A.MAM/A.A&KAA.A-2/3040/ 2016-17 ANNEX-A.

¶57

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶58

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶59

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10426 WP No. 12665 of 2017 C/W WP No. 12425 of 2017 AND 1 OTHER

¶60

ORAL ORDER

¶61

The petitioner is before this Court seeking following

¶62

reliefs:

¶63

a. “Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order and quash the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent, dated 08.02.2017 bearing No. KA. KAI. PRA. A. MAM/ A.A & KAA. A-2/2650/2016-17 vide Annexure-A;

¶64

b. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of this case in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶65

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶66

petitions are rendered infructuous .

¶67

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitions are dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶68

In view of the dismissal of the petitions, pending I.A’s. do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the same are disposed of.

¶69

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶70

JS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

M/S Ji Hazoor v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ji Hazoor 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

Sri. Chandrashekar Vs Additional Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

H R Shantha Vs the State of Karnataka

Top Gains Minerals Macao Commercial Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Sreejith Vijayan Sreekumari Vs Union of India

Sree Srikanteshwara Multipurpose Vs Mysore Palace Board

Sri. Lakshmi Jeweller Vs the Authorized Officer