M/S Pinnacle Technologies Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:11617 WP No. 6508 of 2025

¶2

1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 6508 OF 2025 (GM-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S PINNACLE TECHNOLOGIES NO. 139, SUKRUT, 1 FLOOR, 10TH MAIN. SADASHIVNAGAR, BANGALORE-560080 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. VAISHALI G. R AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, SECTION 58 INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001

¶14

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 4TH FLOOR, EAST WING,

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:11617 WP No. 6508 of 2025

¶17

KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001

¶18

MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA UDYOG MITRA, NO. 49, 3RD FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN (EAST WING), RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. B. VACHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. SUKRUTA R, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶21

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE WRITTEN REPRESENTATION DATED 18.10.2019 AT ANNEXURE-C AND REPRESENTATION DATED 21.02.2025 AT ANNEXURE-G SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING ALLOTMENT OF LAND AS APPROVED BY THE DLSWCC, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Heard Sri. Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Mohamed Jaffer Shah, learned

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:11617 WP No. 6508 of 2025

¶28

AGA appearing for respondent No.1, Sri. B. Vachan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, Smt. Sukruta R., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and have perused the material on record.

¶29

The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the

¶30

following prayers:

¶31

"a) ISSUE a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to consider the written representation dated 18.10.2019 at Annexure-C and representation dated 21.02.2025 at AnnexureG submitted by the Petitioner seeking allotment of land as approved by the DLSWCC, under the facts and circumstances of the case;

¶32

b) ISSUE a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to allot a plot 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

¶33

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."

¶34

The petitioner files an application before respondent

¶35

No.3 seeking allotment of land for establishment of an industry in the industrial area. It transpires that on 01.03.2019, the application is approved by the District Level Single Window

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11617 WP No. 6508 of 2025

¶37

Clearance Committee for allotment of a land. After 01.03.2019, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has submitted several representations seeking allotment of land. Those having not been considered, has driven the petitioner to this court in the subject petition.

¶38

The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - KIADB submits that, if reasonable time is granted, the representation of the petitioner would be considered for the purpose for which it is submitted and appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with law.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the interregnum between 01.03.2019 and today, a plot was also identified, it would be helpful, if the said plot is allotted to the petitioner. It is for the KIADB to consider the representation and pass necessary orders in accordance with law bearing in mind the said fact as well.

¶40

In that light, I deem it appropriate to dispose the petition directing respondent No.2 - KIADB to consider the

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:11617 WP No. 6508 of 2025

¶43

representation and pass necessary orders in accordance with law, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not earlier.

¶44

Ordered accordingly.

¶45

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶46

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24 CT: BHK

M/S Pinnacle Technologies v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Pinnacle Technologies v. the 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

Shri. Prashanth H H Vs the State of Karnataka

Farohar Global Foundation Vs State of Karnataka

Mr a Shafiulla Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Sri Nagappa Vs M/S Canara Bank

K K Enterprises Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Manjula Vs the Authorized Officer