Karnataka High Court
Sri.Anil S/O Jagadish Suri vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 February, 2019
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G.Narendar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
WRIT PETITION Nos.105981/2019
and 106016/2019 (GM-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
SRI.ANIL S/O JAGADISH SURI,
AGE:63 YEARS,
OCC:BUSINESS AND PROPRIETOR OF
M/S. SURI AUTO PRODUCTS,
SY.NO.42, MTS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580030.
R/O. DESHPANDE NAGAR,
HUBBALLI. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI V.M.SHEELAVANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,
NO.49, 2ND FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
3. KARNTAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
(A GOVT.OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING),
NO.49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS,
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE MEMBER. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVI V.HOSAMANI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2,
-2-
SRI SHARMILA M.PATIL, ADV. FOR R3)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO HANDOVER THE POSSESSION
OF THE ALREADY ALLOTTED 7 ACRES OF LAND IN SY.NO.115-P
AND 116-P AND ISSUE ALLOTMENT LETTER THERETO TO
PETITIONER AND ETC.,
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he had proposed to establish an automobile unit for the purpose of manufacturing auto components in Belur Industrial Area of Belur village, Dharwad, with a proposed investment of Rs.48 crores and the proposal for generating employment for about 300 persons.
3. That the proposal was placed before the State Level Single Window Clearance Agency and the State Level Single Window Clearance Agency was pleased to approve the proposal of the petitioner. -3-
4. That pursuant to the resolution of the State Level Single Window Clearance Agency, a recommendation came to be issued to the 3rd respondent/KIADB to allot 10 acres of land in plot No.608 and 609 of Belur Industrial Area. That pursuant to the recommendation, the 3rd respondent expressed its inability to allot 10 acres as it was required to accommodate the Electricity Supply Company and hence, the petitioner was informed that the petitioner was being allotted 7 acres of land out of the industrial layout created in Sy.No.115-P and 116-P of Kelageri village of Dharwad and the petitioner was asked to remit a sum of Rs.52,85,000/- towards earnest money deposit and 30% initial deposit and that the petitioner has deposited the sums demanded under Annexure-B. Further, the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-D has called upon the petitioner to deposit a further sum of Rs.1,23,20,826/- as tentative premium of the land, EMD and slum improvement cess in addition to the sum already paid. The said sum was paid and acknowledged by the 3rd -4- respondent vide Annexure-C. That as narrated above, the petitioner has paid the entire sum of Rs.1,76,05,826/- pursuant to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent allotting an extent of 7 acres of land. That despite, the petitioner having deposited the entire sum by December 2018, the 3rd respondent has been dragging the issue and not handing over possession of 7 acres of land comprised in Sy.No.115-P and 116-P of Kelageri village.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that attempts are being made by certain vested interest to have the land allotted in their favour and the said vested interest are attempting to manipulate the 3rd respondent and thereby deprive the petitioner of an opportunity to set up the unit and generate employment. That the reluctance on the part of the third respondent is on account of the said manipulation and hence, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court. It is contended that the 3rd respondent erred in reducing the extent of land as recommended by the Single Window -5- Agency and that the 3rd respondent is obliged to abide by the recommendation of the State Level Single Window Clearance Agency.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would contend that the State Level Single Window Committee is merely a recommendatory body and the allotting authority is the third respondent only and hence, the discretion is vested in the third respondent to either allot or to reject the recommendation. In the opinion of this Court, the said contention ought not to be entertained for the short reason that the Single Window Committee is represented by all the relevant departments and resolutions of the Committee are passed after obtaining opinion from the relevant stakeholders. That being the state of affairs, the contention advanced requires to be rejected as even otherwise the party would be entitled to plead estoppel. It is but common knowledge that the State Level Single Window Committee has been given a statutory recognition under the Karnataka Industries -6- (Facilitation) Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act'). Section 8 which deal with the powers of the Committee reads as under:
"8. Powers of the Committee- The State Level Single Window Clearance Committee shall be the final authority in granting approvals for the projects placed before it. The approvals given by the Committee shall be binding on the departments or authorities concerned and such departments or authorities shall issue the required clearance within the stipulated time subject to compliances by the entrepreneurs with the provisions of the applicable Central or State Acts or rules made thereunder."
7. The fact remains that the Administrative Head of the 3rd respondent is also member of the Committee constituted under Section 6 of the Act. That being the position, the contention that the 3rd respondent is entitled to act independently requires to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. If the said contention is accepted, then the statutory committee would be rendered to a non-entity.
-7-
8. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the obligation of fulfilling the recommendation depends on the availability of the land. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the land is available and the availability of the land has been admitted and thereafter a resolution has been passed allotting certain lands and hence, the respondents cannot now attempt to backtrack on the strength of vague contentions. It is not the case of the respondents that the recommendation is impossible of compliance on account of any intervening factor, of which any judicial notice can be taken. In that view of the matter, the objections putforth by the respondents requires to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.
9. Hence, petitions are allowed. There shall be a direction to the 3rd respondent who shall hand over the possession of the lands identified in favour of the petitioner comprised and carved out of Sy.Nos.115-P and 116-P of Kelageri village, Dharwad. The respondent -8- shall hand over the possession of the lands within four weeks from today.
10. With regard to further relief sought for by the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to make a representation to the 3rd respondent-authority and if such a representation is made for allotment of the additional 3 acres of land in compliance with the recommendation of the State Level Single Window Committee, the same shall be expeditiously considered and disposed of by the 3rd respondent within an outer limit of eight weeks from today.
Petitions are ordered accordingly.
(sd/-) JUDGE jm/-