M/S My-Pb Industries Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

M/S My-Pb Industries Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with a direction that respondents 2 and 3 confabulate with respondent No.5 and the Secretary, Commerce and Industries, and take a decision on the petitioner's allotment request in consultation with respondent No.5; with the observation that the Secretary of Industries and Commerce may frame a policy with KIADB involvement if none exists.

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ in the nature of mandamus should issue directing respondents 2 and 3 (KIADB) to allot a plot measuring 1 acre of industrial land in Obalapura 6th Phase, Dabaspet/Sompura Industrial Area, Nelamangala Taluk, in furtherance of the approval of respondent No.5. +1 more

Court's answer

The necessary decision on the petitioner's request was to be taken by respondents 2 and 3 in consultation with respondent No.5, and on that footing the petition was disposed of.

Ratio / Principle

The court directed respondents 2 and 3 to confabulate with respondent No.5 as well as the Secretary, Commerce and Industries, and take a decision to sort out such requests as made in the present case.

Key takeaways

The court observed that where the State has set up a mechanism in the nature of the District Level Single Window Clearance Committee to encourage industrial growth, there has to be coordination with the KIADB to ensure that assurances held out to investors are implemented at the earliest.obiter¶44
By way of observation, it would be appropriate that the Secretary of Industries and Commerce frame a policy in consultation with and involvement of the KIADB, if such policy is not already in existence.obiter¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Constitutional law - Articles 226 and 227 - industrial land allotment - mandamus sought against KIADB (respondents 2 and 3) to allot 1 acre of industrial land in Obalapura 6th Phase, Dabaspet/Sompura Industrial Area, in furtherance of the project approval order dated 09.02.2024 (No. JI KAI KE/BENG.GRAM/DLSWCC/05/2023-24) issued by respondent No.5, District Level Single Window Clearance Committee (Annexure-D); petitioner paid Rs.38,00,000/- (Annexures F and F1) pursuant to the assurance, but no order of allotment was passed. HELD: petition disposed of with a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to confabulate with respondent No.5 and the Secretary, Commerce and Industries and take a decision on the request in consultation with respondent No.5. Observed (advisory): coordination with KIADB is needed to implement assurances held out to investors, and the Secretary of Industries and Commerce may frame a policy in consultation with and involvement of the KIADB if such policy is not already in existence.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:23696 WP No. 18604 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 18604 OF 2025 (GM-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

M/S MY-PB INDUSTRIES, OFFICE AT NO.605, 1ST MAIN, 20TH CROSS, KIRLOSKAR LAYOUT, NEAR SAPTHAGIRI ENGINEERING COLLEGE, BENGALURU NORTH, NAGASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 073, REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR P.M. YOGANANDEESH.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA C, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL

AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:23696 WP No. 18604 of 2025

HC-KAR

THE JOINT DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, JILLADALITA BHAVANA, BEERASANDRA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

THE DISTRICT LEVEL SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE COMMITTEE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, NO. 203, 2ND FLOOR, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVENAHALLI TALUK, DODDABALLAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT DIRECTOR

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1, R4 AND R5; SRI. H.N. VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 TO ALLOT A DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 AND 3 TO ALLOT PLOT MEASURING 1 ACRE OF INDUSTRIAL LAND IN OBALAPURA 6TH PHASE, DABASPET/SOMPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, IN FURTHERANCE OF

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23696 WP No. 18604 of 2025

HC-KAR

THE APPROVAL OF RESPONDENT NO. 5 VIDE PROJECT APPROVAL ORDER DATED 09.02.2024 BEARING NO. JI KAI KE/ BENG. GRAM/DLSWCC/05/2023-24 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE- D AND ETC.,

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondents 2 and 3 to allot a plot measuring 1 acre of industrial land in Obalapura 6^th

Phase, Dabaspet/Sompura Industrial area, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, in furtherance of approval of respondent No.5.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the District level Single Window Clearance Committee in terms of Annexure - D, has recommended for allotment of a plot.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23696 WP No. 18604 of 2025

HC-KAR

It is further submitted that in terms of the communication at Annexure - D, the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.38,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs only) as evidenced by the receipt at Annexures - F and F1. It is further submitted that however respondents 2 and 3 have not passed any order of allotment till date.

It is submitted that the payment of amount at Annexures - F and F1 were only pursuant to the legal assurance of allotment in terms of Annexure - D.

Learned counsel for the respondent - KIADB submits that the decision at Annexure - D has been taken at the end of the Government and they would have to now verify regarding manner of implementation of the assurance held out by the Government at Annexure - D in terms of the applicable policy.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23696 WP No. 18604 of 2025

HC-KAR

It is noticed that there are number of matters filed

raising similar contentions in identical factual matrix.

If it is the policy of the Government to encourage the industrial growth the State has set up a mechanism in the nature of District level Single Window Clearance Committee even before the necessary proceedings are drawn up by the said Committee, there has to be coordination with the KIADB to ensure that the assurance held out to the investors are implemented at the earliest.

In light of the same, respondents 2 and 3 to confabulate with respondent No.5 as well as the Secretary, Commerce and Industries and take a decision to sort out such requests as is made in the present case.

In the present case, necessary decision is to be taken

by respondents 2 and 3 in consultation with respondent No.5. Accordingly, petition is disposed off.

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:23696 WP No. 18604 of 2025

HC-KAR

It is also observed that it would be appropriate that

the Secretary of Industries and Commerce may frame a policy in consultation with and involvement of the KIADB if such policy is not already in existence.

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 CT: BHK