Karnataka High Court
M/S Gati Limited vs The Karnataka Industrial Area ... on 18 April, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
WRIT PETITION NO.50662 OF 2015 (GM-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
M/S. GATI LIMITED
A LIMITED COMPANY,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT NO.5C,
SURVEY NO.17, PEENYA 1ST STAGE,
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
BENGALURU-560 058.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GPA HOLDER AND ALSO WORKING AS
HEAD LEGAL
SRI. RAVINDRA KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O. SRI. G. HANUMANTHA RAO. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADV.)
AND
1. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
VIDHANA VEEDHI
2
BENGALURU-560 001
BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.
3. UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
STATE OF KARNATAKA
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
VIDHANA VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. I. GOPALAKRISHNA, ADVOCTE FOR R-1
SRI. A. RAMESH GOWDA, AGA FOR R-2 AND R-3)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
LETTER DATED 16.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT,
REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR
CHANGE OF LAND USE FROM INDUSTRIAL TO COMMERCIAL-
CUM-RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A AND
TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION
FOR ISSUE OF NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE AS PER
APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
RESPONDENT WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-B AND TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO ISSUE NO OBJECTION
CERTIFICATE FROM CONVERTING THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY TO
INDUSTRIAL TO COMMRCIAL-CUM-RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES
PURSUANT TO THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY STATE OF
KARNATAKA GAZETTE ON 22.12.2014 IMPOSING CERTAIN
RESTRICTION ON THE PETITIONER'S USAGE OF THE SCHEDULE
PROPERTY TO INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES, ESPECIALLY
WAREHOUSING AND TRANSPORT SERVICES.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING-
B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner is absent, no representation. On the last occasion also learned counsel for the petitioner was absent. Hence, petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/-
JUDGE hd