Base Corporation Limited vs The Karnataka Industrial Areas ... on 10 June, 2011

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Base Corporation Limited vs The Karnataka Industrial Areas ... on 10 June, 2011

Bench: B.V.Nagarathna

 

V-,

IN THE HIGH OOIIRT OR KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DAIRD THIS Q"HE§%§' 3§ﬁDA&' OF JUNE, 2<;>I 

BEFORE

THE HQNBLE MRSJUSTICE D.v.NAGARAIIIIIIA % ' '

WRIT PETITION N'()a].957I)-v.9:>lA,A>V2 0'('.i'"'f".If   

BETWEEN:

BASE CORPORATION LIMITED  . ' 

(A COMPANY INcORRORATED"'IINDE"R.THE 
PROVISIONS OF' THE €.Q'i'v'_IPANIg_ES 'A<:tI';'~I956I

AND HAVING ITS REGD OFFICE AT1.#II'-848' 

15TH MAIN, 3RD BI,DGI<:,_IIORII/IAI\IGAIIA--,i._D*LORE-34

R/BY MANAGING~--DIR:Ii;OTO*R  

MR. GIRISH ARORA, AGED ABO'IIT"z:4"*I*I$ARs
R/O      
_,   ' '  PETITIONER

(By szfi:  ADV.)

AND:

'D..I3vI:I,ORMDNT BOARD
 I NO.«l«--:§/SI 2ND FLOOR, RR BUILDING
 WNRIjPATH UNGA ROAD. BANGALORE ~ 560 OOI
'~If'I"s CHIEF' IIXEGIIIIVR OFFICER AND

I 9 ..  IRE I<ARNAIfAKA_ INDUSTRIAL AREAS

"  MANAGING DIRECTOR

GOivDRNIIII:NI' OR KARNATAKA

. RI:i:RD\; THE: PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
"_«OONINIRR<:D AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT

 MEI RDILDING, 3RD FLOOR
BANGALORE A 5560 DOI

3. MRS NAFEEEZSA FAZAL

MINISTER GE' STATE FOR SCIENCE; 81
'E'ECHN€}LOGY ANS INDIAN 3353'? EM OF IVIEZIXCINEZ
5%: HQ§\fTEQPA"§HY, 'v*"iE}HAINz58¥ SOUDBA



 

(A)

{AMENDED THE} CAUSE TITLE; AS PER COURT ORDER
DATED 21/03/2005, R'? AMEZNEZD v;e:.<3 DATED
30/11,/2:13:05}  

. . . RESP<j'}»§DENTS

{By Sri: P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR _--;:9eR ' ~ i    ~ _
SR1.K.s.MALL1KAR..;UNA1AH, HCGP FQR R2,_Sf»f{T'E§AMAL'8:__ 
BANU, ADVS, FOR R3, SRl.ANAN.T__MANDGi;~_}ADV,'FGRV'

R4A(1~3} & B, SRE.K.SHASHIKIRA:N SHETTY, Ae._\?.-_:~'.QR" R57,

SRLSREEZVATSA, Am: FOR R6, SR1.C;;'K:v*E:NKAT;::s:+:;ADV.

FOR R7, SRE.KRISHNA.S.D£X1;T, ADV. FOR R4{_en' * * '

THIS we 18 F1LED""'eE:fmY1NG'"*.j'c:L"QIi;;si}i THE

GAZETTE NOTIFICATIQN DT. i_5_.5j.»v2oe4 ISSUEDA 335' R2 VIDE
ANNEX.N§ TO THE pR;r:_s}3;NT~'wR:T .;f:~:ﬁ~fr1oN.

THIS PETITION 'ﬁzoé/II§'v\FG""~o'1\i5:--="OR DICTATING
ORDERS THIS .DAY_, Cé3URTﬂ\/Lé;D*E_jTHE'FOLLOVVING:-

  _theWpetiti0ner has sought the

follewiﬁg reliefs:  . " A 

  Issue' ef eertiorari, at any other appropriate
 erder or direction, quashing the Gazette
' Q:"';g,e_t:%E.Cé;1ie;2 CPMG/KA/BG-GP€)/13/2003-O5 dateé
 .5';v$.2004 issued by the 20¢ reszlondent vide

V  ¢A1meX.ure~N is the present writ petitien:
 is} ieeue a writ of mandamus, er any ether W§'i'£ er
direetier": directing the W respondent, ire eentinue

ané eempéete ihe acquisition preeeedings in respeei ef the Eamée <:eve:"ed under S3;-:E"~I0s.28;"§. 28/2 and *7?» B3.hga1o1'e for the p«urpose of S€'i'ViC?i,i1g the ET i_r:_dusiery eiiieiehiiy. That it had entered into Varioue his-;it,h the owners of land bearing Sy.No.29/2 n1easL_iri--hg_i' guntas on Kariammana Agrahara_, .XZa_1_'thL1fé Ieiebiiiii.» i3:::1ga1efe South Taluk. However, since the"-.sai:iiewriiesjshiéldui'2iiiee£7.{eo perform their obligations uniie'r._i,he agreemehi,_, E/jf}iVC"f3§3iZi'1{,iOII€E*. ' has filed a suit for specific pending consideration before é§8':F_f' Civil Judge, Mayghall, Bangaiore. ﬁé{:1--:'io11e1*, it had also entered into 4 acres of land in sy,Nos_28 '-- ' stood thus, the State G0vernrher;iir1teh,_§ie'i<i_ an industrial area in various Suméey fiumbei"i:a«eluding the aforeineniioned survey number .a::,d ezceoeeiiiegly. issued preliminary notification dated ~i€:»..

Section 3(1) of the iiarnaiaiia ifl€jUSU"i}C'J Deiéeiopihezii Act, 1966 {hereinafter referred to as the Act'), Sierhulieneousiy, notiiieatioh was also iesued under Section ef the said Act. 8. eepy of which is p:*o<:iL;ee<i as ' ";5§I1H€X'LZF€-A to the writ, peiﬁiee. ii. appeare iehai; {here was a chaiienge maiie 'Le the aC§C§u§Sii.i(}H §}I'=i)(7f_?€f'/éf§i.,{}.§§,'E~T» arid 3: i,i,ib1i¥3 ieiereei iiiigaiien was {iied heio:*e iigis {Tt<,'§'L§1"§.. In CD the nieanwhiie, the Karnataka Iricitistriai Areas Deveie.pnient Bearei (hereinafter/referred to as the 'KiADB'} had the request of the petitiener for acquisition ia.n{:i'vt:'a"t 24531 meeting and had resolved the.*~the extent "e_Vi"uu about 5 acres be acquired in faveiir 'the:'peti.ti0ner0"----as7a single unit acquisition and a0_res.0IutiO-nV teat' that effect was passeei whiciiﬁs».V_pr9dueed«as z'{ihnexure~. Subsequently, the 'iafietter dated 13182002 to the petitioner. askingthte"pe't--itiQnertte seeiure the consent of M/s Reyai" tttiatwthe petitioner could have a e0IriQ0e_ite_ ext'entV'e./f'V'i_1a;n(i'fortthe purpose of industrial unit' Accordingly, tithe .peti_'ti0ner obtained Consent letter from M/s 2.8.2002. Whereupon, the KIADB issiied 1¢::ef~.§§a;re0d 319.2002 to the petitioner asking it K400/'oh"Cafv.t.h_e'arneunt totaling to Rs.2Z.e50,O00/W to ' KLv'¥DB:'and.._aee0rdingiyi the petitioner has deposited the 1302002. Thereafter, the petitioner aciciressediat letter en i?'.9.2003 to the KIADB requesting fer , Aspeedinsg up ef the acquisition proceedings. EL According to the petitieneri Wiien the matter steed: ijinisi it appears that the €i€1,'£,i§j'i't€3i" {if the third respendent 1/iaé entered into aggreenientis fer the ptirpese ei"

/{Us the Eahds sought: {.0 be acquired by the peiitioher aHd_.h_€I1C€§ soughi the acquisition preceedings be droppedf"Eh'~«_Vii2;j:t Context, 3 ietter dated 22.8.2003 was addresse;i:<'i:>}{ respondent to the Hozfble Chief u start 3. business school in Kafiarhmaha Agrafxé;rAa.Rf1.1I§ge and-. V "

that she had paid advance E{}%'1:iV3l.V1:1"1i~.,_t() ﬁmvners of Sy.N0s. 28/1, 28/2 aﬁ§:_i"j«29;-'_;2 g5,a".::';§£'.::» hadeeme to her knowledge that' the had issued preliminary of the Act in the year 2001 dropping of acquisition procsﬁﬂjhgsh; seii{j'i6tt€Er dated 22.8.2003 is produeed hpetitioner has averted that on aeeeunt ofuthe V taken by the third respondent, C0,;/VﬁfI1t;?1iiG?l1'£i0nA'"was.~'addr'essed to the Pollution Control ' f3Gaxd--.{h'ere.ih'af":er referred to as the 'Boarefi? by the Special H DVep.ui:§}V 'éiemihissioher eh 2911,2003 seeking its opinion regafdfte the viability of establishing a power backup " S}~6.i€H1H'iI1dUSifia1 unit in the Eahds in question and as is véheiher it woulei cause any texic poilutish. The petitioner V' "Was else askeé is give his views on the COH1H1L1¥1§C3ti{)I1 {mm the Board and a detailed represehéatihh was made st:a'£ihg éhat Eihe 8§QY€}'£€E'i."3iQ§E éhai the ihdustrisj unit seughi is be LX7 \ set up by the petitioner would eanse pollution xx?as'i'pﬁi?holl§«' unwarranted and that no such activity for the of batteries was to be taken up. The eon1rnun_ieat,iorrs~ in this i regard are all collectively prod1iee'd._ has ~:'An11e:<_tire~H'l; Thereafter, on 9.22004} KEADB so'n_gl1i;_.to petitioner as to whether it wa.s'V"iagreeable aliotrnent of V different lands in Case S3{:NOS'.:'2.8 2 utere"deVleted from acquisition proceedings.' it replied on 11.2.2004 stating -thatﬁg in favour of the petitioner initial deposit had been rnalde, ailott.irrg an alternative land did not arise. I was served with a letter dated the second respondent stating tl1at._%lthei'projeet"proposed to be set up by the petitioner in the .lands Question was not suitable and hence, the 1'n""'V.faVour of the petitioner would not be eon't:?nued.'v"':On receipt of the letter dated 2l.2.:?;{)€}z%, it h app_ears'; 'petitioner had approached the then Shief Minister l's_lta'tlrig that he had himself earlier recommended that the pp _,,_;g;nd ':33 allotted in favour of the petitioner, According to the petitioner, on aeeonnt of the attempts made by respondent Nosjﬁ and 6, the {ands which were allotted to the petitioner were denotiféed and the eatlatyst for the said denotifieation 5 EVQF53 order is ietter dated l.5.2Q€}4 addressed by the_.-atthtrd respondents daughter, ie, the E3"? respondent Chief Minister pointing out that she was in buying the land directly from the»~fa_:mej;sMantel:»h.a:l'_'_A.paf;iuVV substantial advances with regard the of the said letter is anneXe:l"'--~as Atmexttreﬁll/ll Xt_o--v..the3 writs' petition. That within four da3_:_sVV"the:eaftei*, '-(3t'tet1€)l;lfl7iC3.tlO1'1 of the lands allotted to been made by issuance of a notificatioh--.ot'1» l'.-5A.ZGO?l.Wl"1iteh is produced as Annexure-N. ",_.ﬂF;f?t€ %3:é€iT;iCti€F has"'a"ver1'ed that the dropping of the the petitioners allotment is eoheerneelt lllegal, Aatrhttttiary and a malafide act on the part of_"th,eVfespondeht:atgthorities. The same is also challenged ';oVt1._thel'~g:"o1ajhel that the requirements for dropping of 'a,eqttisttio%;--.hat%e net been eomplted with in the instant case anti oh the interjection ef the third and the sixth ":'espohetent to whose wishes the authorities yielded and lllpassed such an Gfdﬁt' dehottfying the lands in question' The "tpetttteher has altse stated that by virtue ef eremtse made by the respehde::t~a,t:therities, he has alteted his position to his detriment. aha 'tl":€?€fOI'€§ the prihetples sf §i"Oﬁ1iSS{}t':J 5 its '"

are not attraeteri tn the facts of the ease; Thain the.«_'aetion;of the responeientattthorities is reasonable and fair iri<%§i'e$i7i='.<>f' the fact that dropping of the acquisition proeee&--iﬁn_gsl'is at the" "

instance of the Pollution Controli' Boarel offered alternative land and irier_eiore"ihe' relief ; petitioner eannot be granted Writ petition. '

7. Respondent No.2,....l;as "also iiieri Vrobjeetions contending hat the State' notification for acquisition aeoount of report subrnitted stating that the projectvprop'o.set'i1ll3:jy ihxrolves use of lead which is a tofstie metal >ilnTthve__ establishment of power baolcup systems,' was the industrial unit was not suitabieesfor ti":-es area as Kariarnrnana Agrahara as Belandur lltanlk is"llooa:~t'ecl in oiose vicinity. Considering the opinion I Poiltition Control Board the State {:r0"v?{3I'i'1l'?fif3fi'€~~" toek a decision exercising the power under $€VC}[lOll'i,_ of the Act. That there is no illegality or l.AAa;*Eiiti'ariness in the issuance of the rienotifieation ereier and that an alternative land was offered to the petitiener for the proposed project, gig! ! M}

8. Respondent No.3 has also filed s2;ate:nf1'e.nlt~._ of ebjeetions admitting that her daughter respondent' rnade preparations for purchase of' lands'"it'r'----d;;:estion for"

establishing a business school and ttherefore,'a..reqt1e:si;_ was made to the then Chief Miniest-e__r, Goxternmer:tV"ef .r§3.rn_atal:ae_dK to consider the dropping of 'vﬁolxlffever, she has contended that ﬁner official position in making the Communication was sent to the capacity of a parent and as per letter dated a1'1y--attempt with regard to the denotilfz'eattlor1Vovf'question. She has also denied that her' daughter are in real estate business. Therefore_,__sne has sought for dismissal of the Writ '«.:R.e_spon,dent No.3 has also filed additional H 'staternenlt'_"Ofjoliljections eontending' that she had no role to eitlézerlllﬁzvith the KIADB passing denotifieatton order or opinion given by the Karnataka State Pollution llﬁontrol Board-respondent No.7 herein and that the VV " "allegations made by the petitioner against her are fabricated and wltlzout any substance,

9 Respendent Noséibl and 5 nave also filed o'o;'eetiens eontendingf that the petitioner has been ta» respenelents aria en the basis at the report: of the Pelhattien Central Board. Hence, these resperidents have alsjs' for dismissal of the writ petition. Respondent" ' also filed additional statement of 0hj.e.e,tiens_;l ll that the petitioner cannot eampel acquire the land far its benelfi't.._Vandlheheet dismissal of the writ petition.

10. It is, hoW.ex2err',--.. relevaln'tt = "note that the statement 0f;"abj;e:e'ti0ris n6tA:.'alny.__.wfhere whisper with regard to insofar as the role played't'lb§lf 6 in the issuance of denotifieatlonl is n_e'<;1 Q "l liieaadndent No.8 has also filed statement of elenying there has been any rnalaficles in the ilsstuarie:e'~V..el' gievriietifieatiens or that her rnether has played any role tlrepping of the acquisition of the lands in questierﬁ' She has alse admitted that agreements far sale ""f~;.g;\g'é'."b5€n entered into by her with the ewners at the lands in Sy.Ne:>.28 and has denied the avertnents made by the petitianer. She has alse eentendeel that she has eredentials ts establish a lausiness seheel sinee she has graduatecl {rem the Easter: ijniveesitly, United liinggttem :git,h a iﬁglastiers ef 'y! 'W Science irr NE8.I1E'z.§€£':}€ﬁt. and has varied experier:ee afegoed. That she had aiready established an elementary the Varthur Road in Sarjapur by name '1rr\.*ertt;ur'e V' with the eeiiaberation of Mahagirlgf ~}3*ireCte'r.V Vt Group. She has alse stated that mother and herself ta he Chief_'M;1nister have r L' and misinterpreted by the petitierrer ahd hes no rele to play in the den0tificat.t'.eh'tssuet'r.th:y__the>Sbtate &}O"\/'€I"Y1II1€1'1t. Therefere, she had writ petition.

12. h'asV"~§a1s0 filed statement of .3. was made by a letter dated ..regard to the suitability of the 1ar1ds_ q1t1'estVionVforAthesetting up of a power backup unit an=..irinit.ie.§1y an was expressed that the lands were hrﬁt 'sg1i'tshie'vfer----such an unit. Thereafter on 1.12.2003. the Mertagiﬁg««'V."L§)Vis§5cter ef the p€titi{}f1€FS~COFpOfEiiiOf1 hazi addressed letter to the respendent explaining absent the ﬁeﬁeseei project stating that the preject. was for the Rezsseﬂrnblirrg et' pewer backup system fer seftware anti Vt ""hs;rdware industries end did not ihveive in any mahu.fe.et::_.12*i.n.§§ aeti.vit§/. '§'h3.t: else the P{.IAE}B had writterz at:

28.132333 tie the 'F'i?3 respshdeztt stating that the}./* tvarrteei 3% ti' 1'? :/« any prepesed incltistrial 21Ct,l\7§§.}V, While dﬁriyeg-:;i§;"..'tl*iVe:';~¢;s.§;l'iL:.t§' averinents, the 37": respondents has seught.'di'srni'ssali. at the it "

writ petition l3l In response the petitieaner'----has fillefil 1'ej't:rin:iei'._V denying various avernients ai?s_el"'~e0nteritiei1--s i*ais--eel the V' respondents.

14. I have heaitl for the petitioner and learned respondents and learned Goikerii_ine'iit3l'--Plea£i'er'forrespondent No.2. Leari3ieclV * appearing for the petitioner __ »thaVt-....the.' notification at Annexure~M dated 5.5.2004 Section 4 of the Act. whereby Sy,N;o'.2T{', 4.: acres l8 gtintas; Sy.N0.28/l, .l"*rnea*sltiririg li'2»A.¢aieresV;/lililllllgtintas and Sy.l\le,28/2., measuring 38 been denetifiecl from acqtiisitien and that the said' netifieaticn is an instance of rnalafide exereise of pewer. Hlmele hassiiibniitteel that when the State Government en being with the prepesecl prejeet ef the petitioner haé elﬁeareei the same in the proceedings heltl by State Level 8ingle Winclee; Clearanee Cernniittee and also on being satisfied abetit the extent ei' land §"€qLi§I'€d fer the petitlienefs Nix:

erejeet had aise :*eseitret% the £iCiZ'§tlI§i'€ the land fer the v zi $ % Kartammana Agrahara Village could he previded fetothe petitioner eoxnpany as Single unit for the pu::p.ose..of [the project. He further submits that pursuant to K V' of the KIADB, the petitiezher has the.e_£e:;t:.tei'tion'« chaggs 1&1, R&22iXLOOO/3 ou{3of,R&5e;e;e0o}{"Q§%e 5.9.2002 which is evidenced 'hf?-tAnnext?§esV~D_= HE' and V subsequently, when the pertit1oh<;:{"~..was hthexpeeting the acquisition proeeedings"ato;_he" poesession of the lands in '_o§{et petitioner, at that stage 'reVephot:ide_n't Nos.3 that the lands proposed--to.heyetC:tfttired--"petitioner were dropped from aequisity;_§)n," "t the doctrine of promissory estoppel 3.Ve§tti'tht;1_tet:':_eXt)eetatton would apply in the instahtu ease and'--..thetefore, the second prayer made by the .petttton_eI'«.herein to issue a direction to the respondent- 'ua11thorittee_"_v»to'eotnplete the acquisition on the quashtng of &mﬁ&&mMmnm®n " 17: He has also dravm my attention to the vartoue eonirnunieation between KEADB and the 7"? respondent "njétnzeiy the Pottutien Centre} Board and has stated that there been he report, Submitted by the Pothttion Centre} Bead with regard to the envirenntental tnzpaet by the 5;./1,54 .*/3/\) dated 55.05.2004 eannet be qnestiened in this writ pVe'ts1_tien, inasmuch as the State Governrnent has exercisepdﬁ-ts"

in terms of section 4 ef the Act that the said u not an account of any intervention bifiveidtfgedrvpsthe ' V 3" respendent or the 6"' resp0nd'ent::'_':With denotifyg which has been takenen merits a,ndt..vth'e'refe.re} the L' order 0f the State Government ui:aV_aec0rda11eevWit_h law and it cannot be interfered" with " Court. Learned Governrnent Pleader has...aiS0 st.1bn1ittteVdvdthetrecords leading up to the denc§:ttfr§ia.ticn::'jrderxdated 'd5;9-5.2004. 2.1."-Vt. appearing for the respondent No.3 has =stated':that._ t}'1re.V"'petittoner has made a two-fold prayer narnely forqnasning of the denotiﬁcation at Annexure ' direlctton topvthe respondent authority te centinue the proceedings, that prayer N02 cannot be granted"b§rvv.this'Court, since the State Gdvernrnent cannot be dire'eted.Vt0'e'€)ntinue with any acquisition proceedings as it is h ]ieff__te the Wisdsrn of the State Cirevernrnent to either initiate, ' 'Aeentinue er it is continued aeqnisttien preeeedings that even ».._at"ter this Ceurt would cerne to a eanclusion that denettfieatien is not in aecerdance with Law an t3enefi,t; can be extended te the petniener and the/refere the writ petitten has %a»' power. He has else drawn niy attentien tn Aniiextire e 'Li and has stated that the decision taken by Government on 23.02.2004 and as COmﬂ1uniCatéAt:VV'.iii":they"

Chief Executive Officer of the \af0'uid.::'_:ei'iectAV the" it reasons as to why the decision was taken ffoia»dfnppi'rig=-inf acquisition in the present cas'e.aand en :1 readingtnf the'; saidii', document it does not reflectitheiit' tine saa;idj:d'ecisien of the State Gevernrnent xvastdn by any external agency. He theVr:e't'et_e the dmpping of the acquisition':~«;.n%°oceedit1i§s case is in accordance' 4': V. i it contended that the State G0ve:nment_VhasVtavken Consideration the objections fiied byV~'5;he Wand "C'}";~'J,,I1__§1_"Sv namely owners of iand bearing ' s§?.*ne.28)'.i'<gind___2 and it is on the basis at their ebjeetiens H said land for the purpose of estabiishing a s'e'ftw*:nfe"p".e1rk that the State Clmvernrnent deeided ta drop tnve..4_scq;t1tsition of the iands in question. He has also said "'t.t:1e;t"Athe principle ni' premissery esteppei is not applicable V' "since the petitioner is not an aggrieved persen ané ne erejuchiee eanseci tie the petit:i{>n,ei". intact the respendent authorities efiereé tie retum the tneney depesited by the 9%//' petitioner and alse effereei an alternative peiiiioner but the peiiiioner has noﬁiiaeeeépied _:£hﬁe"eaid*-e»fi'eii and inetead, has filed this writ peiiii'Qn:'a.i "

24. Learned counsel aiacii"subrnitieid'iiiihiaiiiiiirnniigned notification dated 5.5.2ieQ4 is.i's;"s'u§%j:i at-.2; stage"afiier hearing the objections of the ianci passing of an order under fﬁter hearing the objections pi' State Governrneni has decided. aeiiuisition. However, while issuinéﬁthe Section 4 of the Act has also been ini/inked'. the entire area thereby excluded the, in riuesitionefrorn the industriai area, that even tiheinvoeation of Section 4, the lands eeuld have "b.¢e;:_ VeX<:1iided._irern acquisition, since Annexure *"L' which is the"'e:1eei.:~;~:i<'3r: 'ef the KIADB does nor refer to the exclusion of T'i:3.nCie inqiiesiion from the industrial area in terms of Seeiion . ?--:1e'i7 the Aer.

25. Learned Senior enunse} appearing for the respendeni: N06 Whiie referring to hie siaiernent hf ehjeetiens had eentended that reependeni N06 is a qnaiifieei nereen whe intended in eeii up a bneinese sehnei in the land in queeiien anri haé eniereﬁ inin an agreerneni win the Eanri V ea the denettfteatton of the tanets in question there was no further request made to the '??h respondent with regard to giving any final opinion in the matter. He has..~«a1S_o.staite'd, that the 7:1: respondent had infaet issued the FEADB to give details of the petitioners»tirrchistrial ,1§'e:*;;:g. a final opinion Could be given by véthet'-7"} regard to any possible po11utior'1../gtnpaet that 'eotizldttthet eaused by the said industry.

28. In reply. Iearneetrr appearing for the petitioners sta'te<i tupraiyers made by the petitioners are order, that prayer No.2 is main prayer. Since the denotifieattont has been challenged in the instant ease; exercise of its power of judicial V. Wizile' apeijuotetatton on the Validity of the denottfieation consequential prayer in the event at this a conclusion that the said notification is "-.iHegaL" therefore submitted that the prayers sought in ":t't'rit pettton Wonk} have to be granted having regard to the material produced by the petitioner with regard to the events teaching up to the denotifieation, He has also stated that the rrtatertais on reeortt wetztd arnpiy aernonstrate that the denotéfieatrien is vttiatrect on aeeonnt of extranepus ,:§','«('7 [\) CID \ eonsieierations and the exercise of eiiseretion is'i,_v&hoiiy arbitrary and iilegai in the instant ease.

29. Distinguishing the oréjhller single judge of this Court in _Writl'Petition .i:l'?'i27f.2l'(3€)lEl3'=.p and eonneeted matters datedl'3Q?Li'}4.20l'O._he.is"£:ate§ilthat thel factual matrix of the easie"i:--:»ﬂdifi'erent from the present case inasmuch as the' p.r'eseint'»heasemoiialafides has to be considered haiiiiig regard' placed by the petitioner. filed by the 79* respondent nature of activity of the petitioner._ the industrial unit to be set up by the the manufacture of the batteries butioiﬁthellpzlirpolse of 'supplying alternative power to the Therefore the initial report of the Board is also incorrect. He has also stated report is only an excuse for issuing the tienotifieiation whereas it was an aeeount of favoritism shown 2 Atoirespondent Nos.3 and 6, that the Clenotifieation has been in the present ease and therefore a tentative report it the Pollution Controi Board can have no hearing with regard to the nature oi' ineltistriai §.C¥:,l'«./'il)y oi" the petitioner eornpanjg. tie has also stated that the lanei owners were V I T\3 \£) a preveked to ask for dropping the acquisition pr0eee:tiri<gs*.Vatr the 'behest of respondent N053 and 5. He has*-- that the initial report of the Poitutierr€:_er1tr'eiEe'a.rd it taker: epiriieri of the iarid owners V3s:ith;'reAg;arei.te~ the impact of poiiutien which isitaﬁyhoily"v.rrieaniié§1es's.._e;§:ereise;.V"

He has also drawn rny agreements entered into by "e{L';aai*tir1er to M/s.Hiteeh properties, subsequerttv-- order dated 5.5.2004 notification under Section has Viheten issued insofar as that is the subject matter of ehailieriget «owner in W.P.N0.3O983/2004. Therefore, tr1e_VVriet;ii7ie;:ti0Ai'i. impugned in this writ petition has e{uas.hed arittthe consequential prayer sought by the _ 'petitietriert haste be granted.

. Befere dweiltrig on the eontreversy in this ease ihé'~--un.{iiS§tit€d facts may be stated. That by a preliminary Arietifieatieri dated iO.10,200i the State Governrnent had ts aeqtiire iriter aiiat tahds bearing Sy.Ne.2'7, 28 and Vi VV SQ/2. Sirriuitarieezus rietifieatiorts were issued under Seetieri 3{i}t 1(3) and 28(1) ef the Act. Subsequerttty by pfOC€€d§:1§S held eh 3i.€}?i2QG2 at 2450' meeting of the Boarzi it was 1'eseE:!eé that; aiietmerit 05 5 aeres in s§J.r1e.?;8 arid 2%': at K tr Kariyarrirriarxa Agrahara has been made in favour of ihe petitioner for setting up of its ir:rdustria;i uriii besides centre and the petitioner was directed to co:_1i?iri'ee_~ Royal Fragrance Private Iimiied to part wiih for its proposed project ss that an exterii of 5j.acresAAas Q21 unit acquisition could be provided for'ihe'--peiiiieriiervs, "sui;;é:;ri to the petitioners securing 'u'VcoTrise_nt MR0}/ai Fragrance Private Ltd" ':'i"i3ere:_ifierVAi:ii§ii:§E2¢Boa1;d"iVrote to the petitioner in that regard 'eir1fd__s.ubsequent1y on 5.09.2002 after consent from MI/Sn Royai i;:;:i.; KIADB asked the petitior:er""'Loi. of eiequisitiori charges and accordiriglgr ~ was deposited by the petitionerVV'Wi.ih~V S letter dated 13.09.2002, since «_ ihere'«:.wj2is no further___s':ep takeri in respect of eompietion of 'tiie"a,cqu_is5.iiQii,v the petitioner wrote to KJADB on 17.09.2003 req.d'estirig:.V.''iri ' complete the acquisition and to aiioi the j lands fro" iheddpetiiiener at the earliest it is at this stage that '2_'s~.ii'ies---records ieadirig up to the derioiificaiiori of the lands in dririesiiorr by notification dated 5,5.2E){}-4 wouid have to be u Weensidered in order to adjudicate dpori iis vaiidiiyr 5% Seetgon 485?} Qf the L531 Act can be exercteeet the State Government; but onty in afcttr arbitrary manner. Consequently. ne OI'd€Z'j':t2n;i;3:j":.~:"' Section 48(1) of the LA Act ecznfge passeciiv' * _ government, without hearing! the . atttftofity V 'V for whose benefit the ocqttiettion Vt §a,rttcularZy when the p:*e.{tnttnarg"noty"teottoré._:tte¢s. been issued by such Eocat 'd1':rii:'U""i€"ftfi;'l€3LZ ctectaratton statesijthot acqtttfedx for such authority foaftt Wide:

Amarnath Ashran;"Fru.§:t Society' t§;_ (;§o:z;¥e'tnmentt of U.p.199s3 '(i';r,e'Ce:359;:;_ 477 ; 1998 AIR Ltd. L'. State of ogaz-;;{;':;.,_i'ée5§_ £42 38?..t;H_('£iIR 1998 so I608 .- . and State Government Houuselegs Employees Association v. Statetof vK¢;rz:att:Lim,..'~~'t'2oo1 {1} sec 510) : [AIR . 200} so"43_.éf; zooz AIR sow 27).

'E'§A§L>2;igh the said propositions are stated in the eo:itextV._ef eiercise ef powers under Seetien 4&1} of the Land "Aeequieitien Act, 1894 the same can be read with regard to ' =.Seet.£on 4 of the Act under eensideration also. :33. In the said eieeieion the Apex Court has stated Vt Wtthat the exercise ef the power 3:5; the State must be fair and nonerbittrary and that discretion must; be exereised in eeeerdanee with tear. in this ee:nteX':;, it wouid be ef %/K, i W Lu I relevance to advert to the propositions regarding exercise of discretion by an administrative autherity in the coritext of judicial review of an adrriiriistrative actiori. Accrirdirig learned Author; all principles of judicial"-._:re%;ielva V' discretionary powers fall into two riiajor' 'clas«sifi;cati'oris~'Grieg". abuse of power by the authority; two, I':1'Oi1"€X€.I;i'3lS.€».Of In the first category can be inc'liid--ed €X€I?C.lVS'€.,(_")_in ri'oWer male: V fide. or in bad faith, ;;r.zf.or arillliriiprdjjer ptirpose*'Vor taking into account irrelevant or after leaving out :rele£va_rnt V" when there is colourable tifellasettled that exercise of administratii};e5'l.};§o;Vis%i:r. 'stari_d"V.itiated if there is a manifest error & 'eiiehrcise of power is arbitrary. Similarly poWer=._has:..'ibeer1 exercised by riomapplicatiori * V. «_ of Vrrrir1d_dAto relelVarit__fa_c&tors, the exercise of power. Similarly if ' _power'h_a's__beeri exercised on the 1'10i'1~CO1i1Sld€I'atlOﬂ or iiorivappiic'atiori of mind to relevant factors, the exercise of peviéer i:§iVll'lde regarded as manifestly erroneous or the refusal it l0'l,uEil:{€V"if1l0 corisideratieri a relevant fact, or acting on the "oasis cf irrelevant and extrarieeus factors net gjerrriarie to the 'purpose at' arriving at the conclusion would Vitiate arr Maharcija Dharmander Prasad Singh [AIR .3989 SC 997]? 5% %' t QM} «Em \ it has been held that if exercise sf éiscretior: is s::rrer=_éeVr%:.é tor) an extraneeus body, it would be :ritiate:§§;t.."g§};_' _ apgsiieation of mint}. . "

34. The Apex Court in the c3.'se¢_::;.t .).'aI:iAt<Vi'¥4:_¢:;':1(i--:V«'lc1:I"t Sethia Vs. State of West Be;1gal»':£;<3_1'.:R_tV.AZ'96'}"

stated that male: fide exercise 0.f1':~.QwerV' «3<__3es,nc:,t Vrue'Cie'ssVari1y 'V imply any moral turpitude as Iawl' 'It..o.t1iy means that the statutory ngéturposes foreign to those for which in V I'i:,t11is;:Vser1se, the" A.pe;:.3C0urt has equated mala fide exerciser V 29:', ultra vires exercise of administrative p0'Wet'j Hewever, malafides can be a distinct gmugjxd' for Vqu.,ash'ingV' administrative action apart from 'V Tate decisiens of the Apex Court where mala fide 'e::e:f<:i¢se-V {>--fvVp:§$.:er have been quashed can be cited fer the pu1*'p_0se__v'0f .t.i*1e present case. One is C.S.Rowjee Vs. State "'af;Anzcih1A?a Prasad {AIR 1954 so 962} and the ether is t swig cfPunjab Vs; Gurdiai Sir:gh{A1'R 1988 SC 3193.

313. The latter case is one arising under the iarzei {Et{2Q'L3iS§Ji§9¥}; greceeéérzgs where aequisitien at tans was struck 3;?

éswn GI": account of meta tides.

ell;

3?, ln the Context of rnala l'i<:les,Courts that the plea of niala fides is raised etten but . substantiated tea the satisfaction of iglie. ':O1}I'l'~','.H "D/leire raising a doubt or suspicion is not enough ;as:»,3there-.s'no:il'd__ '$338 something specific and clireot.tu.._sustainla plea"o§_An1alafi§cles. The burden of proving rnala ficlelsllonu the making the allegation as a in of the administration that it exeroiisie faith and for public benefit'; sufficient material tel. the rnala fides of the Goxrerninientaas, A}5e§{"Court in the ease of Land Acquisition jﬁnrga Pada Mukherjee [AIR 1980_ SC V of establishing rnala fides lies \reij;f5lr1ea:%il3{ on JE:l'16v.;'}§??l"'SO1"l who makes such allegations and the ::.ourt*eann1et permit such person to side track the issue burden of establishing hostility and Inalus 'V anirrnisvl' In the ease ef Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil Vs. ~.§gfa..&esh Madhav Gasavi [AIR I98'? SC 294}, the Apex ll __(fElourt helel that the evielenee adduced must be certain elear anti specific. as Vague allegations all rnala fieles are not enengh to éislodge: the burden resting on a persen whe rnalies the sarne tnotsggh what is reqnireel in this ttenneetion ﬁeie -~ {here is no such burden on {he irgdividugii as facts ﬁe within the knoxxfieége of the government.

40. In the context ef €X€I'CiS€ of disereiiieneﬂisfkiﬁg into eensideration relevani e0nside1*e;tiQns 'ieVI,avihg_j_ou'Z'., irrelevant considerations is a }:1a1I111*1&a1'2: 0i' gesd' exeref-Lse. discretion. In the Context oI"ab---ggse <:>i'- disereitiorzeeﬁtenj the = Courts use the phrase wegierehisel H}#~:Z)\?V€I"' to deprieate an abuse of exercise means that under the guise of purpose, the authority xv()4eﬂ_.:§:1' Y5' else which it is not authorisgd 'Ié1vvj;f_r1VV'questic)n. In the same way is_'s1so a ground for quashing an in that context, acting under dictatisn, is :3 eseape ﬁirhereby the auiherity dees not °--e>;ei"eise3--.'diseretien vested in it but would exercise discretion e_;;f1def sf a superior auiheriiy. This is in effect is n.Qn--e:>s:.erCiseT of diseretien er nonwexemése of power by the 'v..autheri§;yA'xvhieh is alse bad in law. In the recent march ef administrative law, sfien " ﬁle esneest 0:" fraud on pewez" is pressed éme serviee. Frame} 9:: power imsbies aha': pewer is no: eenferred bu: exefeiserj by an EiL2€hOi'i,'i:f un::ie:* the gguise ef gewez' eenferres. LA .> C0 » i-iewever in "this eentext time has to be eautieiis to ascertain as te whether the exercise :31' pawer can iegiiimat'eiye be traced.

42. Having regard to th_e.....afQresaVi'd""--i,iifveiiLisett1ed_ principle of exercise of diseretioil. 2»admdihisti'ati'Ve' authority the records in the>iVpresent"easeV be scrutinized.

43. Learned furnished the original records tjéée oif' denotifieation. The said i§_etiai*t.:nent of commerce and industry' the 21" respondent funCti0df2_s." been stated after the eorrirnuiiieatieri addre'ssed:-~'iby the KIADB to the petitioner the &_ iat%_:'ei1: rr1_adt'if the Adreqiiisivte initial deposit for the acquisition of 't:he.,1an_d's :'i.ri"'iquesti0n for the petitioner to set up the ir1dtistriaiu-"."i.iri§=tVd and thereafter there was a hill iii the preeeedirigs: The petitierier then addressed a letter to the «V §;:iee&iaiVVi).C. ef the first resperideiit on i7.09.2003 {Arihexure stating that there had been delay in eeriipietieii Of the V "aequisitieri proceedings and that it had not received any ﬁjfihéf eeiiimuriieatiari wiih regard to {he same; it is sees irerri iihe reeerds that a iew dag; §}i"i€3i' ie ihe said 3//' ccrnnnunicaticzn the then Minister fer Sciencé and Tachnoiogy and Indian Sysﬁenl of Mr:-dicines / H0m€.QVp_a%tnE;y, gm respondent herein had 8.ddI"€SS€d a letter Chief Minister Sri.S.M.Krishna, stating Noraine Fazal, respondent No.6 business school the Kariyammana Agrahara V1£.11 a.g€:V zindihuad paid advance amounts in respéisiaﬂof 28/2 and 29/2 and that it 1' {n<)3N1ed'gv§%§A tnat KIADB had issued preliminary_Vn§3nfiné;nc§n _.nncié_1f'bb__Secti0n 28(1) of the Act to a;1cqi:;;T1{}: Under the Circurnstari;r:a€V:sV:::_""Eénén.' for dropping the aCqui$vit'i(5n§'nA §§'id"'1§tter dated 22.8.2003 is extractéxa % V Nctzfees V" VIDHANA SOUDHA,

---------- BANGALOREWI MIT1\§7ISi'ER»v?3S STATE FOR SCIENCE T'E€§HI\?0'{;€){3';Y'V& INDLAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE g,HoMo1:oPATHY n n n n ~ n No/Msi?iIsM/ 2 626/03 A .. D}?-TED: 22/O8/2003 .. ___§€espeCie<:Z Sir:

My daughter EVOORAINE FAZQL intends to start :3 Business Schaoi in KCII'if}1i1§Lfi{Zl Agmhara Viélageg Uathur Babli. K«R.PLéFQﬁ1 Bangalore gsSoL:ih Talulix She has paid 5%» 29,/'2 zvhieh were inciuded in {he pr<%E.f;:}::ne;;i{' Z\fo€§fz'Ca::ier2 issued an {ClI2.2C'O>1"j'o:<fiT'.Cozfride§: & "The Jvlineiszerkfer SCienCe!._& Tffecfinoipgy and ' KUZDFC Smi'. Nc:;fees Feed: had éeéepfzetéed 50 me in this regard." ' .

"The lands sought by"~.Sm.§.Z\'oorL':ine Faézal in her ieiter at cZedr_l'y*-e_ueVf~..Zdp Vfhe {ands notified for A4/VS_e._Reyr1l*E'rdgr:meesePvt. Ltd. and M/s,B(2::e Corpn;"Lfd;'*.« ' .' the letters to both Base Corpn. Ltd.

sdught to be deleted Mieé "I?"«;szgV1lTir)V'z)e.I?:vl.€z;'?'vv_uritij die lands notgfied by irgote yet been received.

' ; The I\/IiIVi'i§i'er for Science and Technolegy Smt. Nafees Fazal had aiso " ._'éeVZe;§'f:9_r:e}:£'Vte me in {his regard."

"}_8A;i- The lands sought by Smtﬂooraine Fazai in Ad I 'her ieziéer at CF 2', eieddy over {cap with the Sands 'eoiified fez' M,/sﬁeyai Fragrances Pei; Lid. and M;'s. Base Corpn. Lid. As per the report: of the CEQ KEABB. {he JMC is under pregress, and so a eieeu" picture wiél emerge Graig: ogfiger JMC is eemieieied, Heweeer, the Ki/QDB Ezad wriéfyezz Eezfsers Se 30:}: 3%/'s,Re;;eE Eéexgrenees eeszci Beee éa:

":25, In the mean itimet Shit. Nafees Fazcii, Hoh'bie Minister of State qfSeierice 8:, Technology, KUIDFC has given a representation dafi€C§.,:."'.._ 2:I2.8,:2003 to the Horﬂble Chief ;_. requesting him to deiete then lands in rioiifieatiori. It is stated in thev-z*ep:*esen'iatiQ'ri Smt, Nafees Fazcii is interesteoir «to 7:st'c:t,rt' 76' business Schooi in the said' Sy.No_$'."*and has paid an advance jor"a,otirchaee*-- of Sy.Nos. 27, 28/1, 38.,/2;-. 'mid 129/.2 giof Kariyammarta Viiiatevi_Vq'»V:artbhur Hobli, K.R.Pura, BVangaloreV_v§S:'otith;V' Chief Minister h.£!'S':V0fd€fé'd the ifeques t. "

1 >1: >.e .§''.:'; :1:

iiii _v séihié' objections filed agairiet Ltd., with regard to polllifipli qcimiegi' i it was referred to the [email protected] It reported that the Member Secretary saidx'Boaroi has opined that the proposed ._Z;oe_a'tiort_i""o.U2_'_'_ the project was riot suitable in the pr'ojjoseo7:v'vriahd for acquisition. Hence in the A circt:.n_i$--iances there is no question ofgoirig ahead bf}-i'ﬁ'.£_ the Zahci acquisition for M / 3., Base V " Corporation Ltd, The amount ciepositeci by Base

--A"ACorporation Ltoi, he refiirioieot by the ADS. "

!§¢>i<>!<*«'§~'>:'€ "29. However as S;;.E'v"o.29;' 2 of Karigamzizaiia Agrahara ifiiiage is being acquired for fvife. Royei Fragrance Pot. Lid', GS s§;a:er:i 3//is ':52. Caz;/firzzled.

PS 50 Han E':/fin ELMIB "£89 éocféé' (59) 5055 w'T(.s«.:..¢g» daU':3<'3e~JV . :--9;a'oac?>aézJ$J:::i>9 wees? 5?@o£§a"5g:%7'~. eszgaaaca r:r§;::i_:>i*5 é~:':i.-:35 afoo 527 cf 4*-'8 @559 2837 cf "'-_;r-c*4_ @559' 53832' :3' g-39 §'3'i.20£3 a:m3.:¢a3f.g V é,5a@ﬁ3§<§Cf3 gzdyasrscé'-.;j,a3z:a'c2> Véeaeséeﬂ 53953;; 500 (4) dew; ﬁdapio 3'oo'Ja5c'i> :9;'d>af¢a¢c3s'»5'€}ac'?2 a:boc%<'i:53a".} L ' ' v

45. In 2_ih'£§;.eeQntextiit":s2v<5u1:{f1'j-beutfeievant to refer to another lettef by the CEO of the first res;)OMfid'e.titj.Be':2ii'd teqfhe Pf9if1'<:'ip ed Secretary, Commerce and Indiistfies'Dep2i1f1;rne:ﬁ:..yxiijerein a specific reference has been n1ade'L"te {he-__nA0t,e'«reCeiVed from the Hor1'b1e Chief Qffiee,""--v'fC_}_€VI¢e.1151 REP 03 dated 28.082003"

xx.zhe.rei£:_A 'Anhe4VA."'HQn'bIe Chief Minister has recorded the i1:=.1_1£:C\_>_\7if1gv :"':'e:r:%i1?E;"s on the representatien submitted by respezzdeiﬁt herein which is as £0110"/*s:~ "' MD, KIADB ~ : 'F.'izif; ?72a§;'~i§€ dmpped -- actiene taken may be reporied"

' _ ' f§*§k in resperise 210 'aha: infcsrmation is; fzzrnisheﬁ ta ' Gxe Pirineipai Secretary Cemmerce and hidustry regard is the Eansig ::;nr:ie1' gzatqazisiéeion process in l'€S}3€C{ sf ihree unite {E} Mfse Reyai Fragrance Priarazee §*:1e:i.§ {2} EVE/S. Basse C<3rp<:s:'a1;§en Ignzéted {§3e'iitée;2e:* herein) {3} Mia. E}h<3em'ix Giebzzi, reievami periions of the ietter periaining :0 {he peiiiiener ﬁe extraeied as fesﬂows:

"III M/s.Base Corporation Limited:

The Company has Minister of Kamaiaka on 8~7~_2002 j2)r:"<:£lotme:_:rf: 'of Sy.No.28 82, 29/ 2 of Kariya.rfri2"r;§1na." A_grah1cara"r._;for~ "iheir * L' proposed Software/ Hardware Ir_z_«_: LL3v_tzy\to fcieilities to "pewer back up syster;1'.Ti;..,,._ On': the Se:1_zVne'~-requestAAthe Hon'bZe Chief Minister has erdere(':iVc£S' u'ndez': fiefdre the Board and consider the rjeqde'-st filter': thelands on Sinqle Unit Comglex"; - _ ';-V Cei:$equer1;t.l#L;,~--:. :I7e" has resoived that an extent about _V 5:05" _'m~es rein '"Karigammana Agrahara village, B(1V_.?:"L;(;',«?v.Cll§i)__r"€: "2"erl_L_Lk.»be acquired in favour of M/s. Base .ACorpur§i:iQz2< Lfmited, as Singée Unit acquzlsition, provided it A '--- see:Lresveegéeerttfrom M,/ s.ReyaZ Fragrances Pei. Limiied. fflze S;z;!.Ne,28 rrzeczsezring 3434 acres has been notiﬁed in h _;'<?:z:>§>ur :g'}'.". M/s. Phoenix Giobal and Sg.No.2§/2 measuring 3 Q' ..A33_e;}:res has been notiﬁed i,I'ljE£f}Ol£I° egf [$47 $4 Regczi Fragrances fj?u{.Limited respeciiveiy.

svffse Raga: Fragrances in Efzeir Eeéier e:i:.2'~8--2{}O2, haee eiargféeei 515:: {hey had :20 ebjeeééerz ie give up rzozjféed Sands S§;.E'€eg2§,;'2 ef Kariyamzrzana Agraizara véiéage {go an X'/g' //5 4&7 1» exieni qf 25 gunflas £0 M;'s.Base Cerpe=rc:Ez'or: Lin1i:e<i'§ C:e:zd Base Corporaiion Ltd. have deposited 48% Qf cos: QfRs.22.5O Zcdchs ta {he Board.

In the meantime {he Honbie Science & Technoiogy has zfequee§ecpi*--_Vihe H:) rz'*bEe Minister of Kamaiaica on 22¥8s_ 2i0.03 :<5~ drop the '§q;eq:,;eisition 2 L' proceedings in Sy.No.27', 28/ 1, &VV29/2--Q_fKariQgznmana Agrahara UiUC1g€.[COpy Einether Note dt.28»8»O3 was also reeeaiv¢e§l'CM's office, which is already discussegi in pc:1:cL§.V_ 1 "

At " filed against M / s. Base Corporatio.n.,jebeee:'}**:::ferr'ej§iVié The Member Secretary has opi';fLeci_ locjcltion was not suitable for the pmposeei prcyect. matter is once again referred to KSPCBf0'r.Velear' 0pifcie:'2...?ibout Board's opinion. "

ejﬁenee the above facts were submitted for ie'~'s}ie\.>s/ 0f the then Horfble Chief Minister's dire'<3tio:_i é31<v:the request of Smt. Nafeeza Fazal, then Minister' ﬁf>:LScie'nee and Technolegy for deletion ef survey Nos.27, 28 "A.;ind..29/2 which were included in preliminary neuifieatien M ..._i.':*;sue§ 9:1 §0,i2.20{)i fer LT. eerridere 48, Subsequeniﬁ; on 9.262084 the Under Seereiary, C{}E'E':n3€1"{3€ anci Ergéueiriee Depa:'é,:11em asidresseej 2: letter ':0 €26/e u ¢_ BQ.7*L§1aZofe~1 .

(L0 K the first respandeent KIADB \'Vh€:'€ 2:, categorical answejrﬁvas sought as :0 whether it was pegsibie for S}7.I1{}.28.'.8.i':TV:§"

notified for the petiticner herein could be deleiﬁd 0' petitioner could be compensated '~':quiV'f4a1e_ntf'1a:1d~._€3Sé., where. In response to that the KIAxDVB:'--s0€§:'01t dated 10.02.2004 which is E18-Vi':}}.,i~CjV.\{YS:

"KARNATAKA 1NDUsm_iks.L AREA S0"m~:Vf1¢;1pPME1irTA BOARD {A Government Aqf 4; 141:3, gm: Flock, T{."?,f}uild§ng, 1V".1{paih RQ_qé, Bangalore-560 001 Phone: 22.153-83, f»§21~56~79; 2242006, 2215069, Fax: 080221 7702 Website: hfi=tp:;7ciq_db.K§:.r.nic,if: _ 'e,._-rnqii: [email protected]. No.1A1:2B/ 114f3'::v0;f_~v3 _ _-- Date: 10452004 The Pririapdé 'S€"GE7:€'i0f'§,'0 330», Commerce &_ I! zdustries "D§5partment. R/I.S..Bw'0lLdin,g, * * ' ' SuE3":".Dé:lélion of {and in Sg.No.2:>: 28/3, 28/2 & .29/2 ._ Of~ Kgfiyanimana Agrahara Viliage, Varthur Habit 0 .B=qngaEore East Taluic from acquisition from ' gzrbceeciings.

Ref: Yeurfaz: éeéier E\?o.CI 47' SPQ 200-4 D£.9--.'2~2004, Péease refer :3 your fax? Zeiter 5:i£,§~2~2004, {he 0 ""cZanj1:::a:iC:rz sought from {his ajfice an éhree poirzzis is submitteci as underr-

E. W§:Vh regard :0 this issue, 285%} is already issuedfor 39477 IE2 acres if": 'jtazsaasr <3? M;'s.R<>ya£ Fragrcznces, as c:g::::'nsé {he siearance af E200 acres by SL513;/"A. A: f32}"€$€'§"éf, {E16 J}:/IC 2&3} enquiry is in pragress. ,} \_g';> Hence, specific etczrgfication as to whether cieietfon of Sy.No.:29 wiil ctdverseiy cgjject the project of M/s.Royc:£ Fragrances needs to be answered oniy after due eéanfftegcitéon frornthe party, However, a Eetter has already been addressed'to'V--Mgf}sﬁ-'. . Roget Fragrances on 9~2~2004 and a repéy is acbcﬂed.'

2. M/s. Pheonix Globai Solutiovneb 'ha:;e'--«. allotted 1000 acres of land at Etectronicifity II'P_h'ase, " ' Hence. presumption thaotite deletion of not affect anybody adversely appears to be gfightgt inisbbpoint oftime. '

3. Simiiar to the clarification giL>en_'in"Point (2) supra, C:

Clear consultation and confir.rnationJis _r:eqz);é.red by M/s. Base Corporation with .r.egardA.:o,..the deletion'.0f'*Sg;'No.28 & 29/ 2 which are alrendynenfied inf~f(jLvout~v%jf_A4,}/s";' Base Corporation Ltd. 1 -- 2 . -

I-Ience,=..Vtft<>V;"5'«:;(bot'e 'CtCtt'Ui sttbmttted, may please be trecttedkxsc. (:1:-ft Inte;":'--m"'repZy Zofox dt.9~2~2004. Yours faithfully, Chief Executive Qjjﬁcer"

'lr:3§'._t:he said <:or:1mumcat,io1:1 no opinion was eipressvecé in regard to the deletion of land in sytNo.'::e} 29/2'

59. When the matter stood thus, one more Eetter éaieﬁ 21/02/04 Was addressed by Principe} Secretary, Cemmeree and Induetries Depar';me::t; to KLQBEB stating 'aha? the ioetetiezi 2:35 the Eemie fer M/eclﬁeee Cereeration Li/dmf fez: e '- Sn'; S.MfVKris'F:na its prepesed prejeet was me': suitable and ihat-; $'1ev 'T V' éepcssited by the said Company wouldﬁxeve te be4'fei3;mVeEee1'«.bj;'._V KLADB Infect in the said letter report compliance with regafd«_V_{'e..V_the hfeport evorfggilianee at " V the earliest.

51. Thereafter it ep_pea1'su5't;hai5:fi.<ji_rf}i1'§her steps were taken by V" the circumstances resp0ndent;'£'€fo}3..:é:~~1etfef,to _the then Chief Minister on O1.G5;'2Q(x)V45,' §¥::;,}j9.py.tQf_'vg;hi'c}_q., also produced by the petitioner and' the iseVe.e§(*{raeted as follows: "1 Mayv 2004"

2 pHor7Qu2:abl.e' Chief Minister ' -._ GQL'€TI3.ITi€flf of. Kgzntataka sSuZg;'eet: of Survey No.27 & 28 Kariyammana Agrahara ViZic:i'ge, 'X/az'"éhur Hobli, Bangaiore East Taluk.

" a Bear Sid 'me 'ebjeeéiee of {his Eeirter is to request you tie reuoice the note issued by your office requesting KIADB :0 acquire the abeve ' {and infaeeur Qf Base Cerporaéion Limited:

Reeapj' baekground of events pertaining :0 Survey §\:'e;27 & 28 Kariyammana Agrahara Viiéage {land} are beéew: A represenéatien dated 1 6 Sept 2Q03 was given 5:0 you be me, requesiiing yezg :0 drep rfhe €"éCC}l,£Z:S¥.f[i(}3"l Qf the Earzei. Gr: {he basis sf this represenétaéiezz you ciireeied the Commerce 8; §:":d;:si':*ies ﬁeparimenz nos' €:iC£:gL{,i?'€ the land; in {am Eéze <3"/2 concerned Minister ordered KIABB to drop the aCqtttstt:ion"'t;tde goett letter no. G E4?'SPQ2004 dated 22 Feb 2004 addressecl to T he Chi€3_fEX€CLl{iL?€ Qﬂieer and Efxeetzttve MangeVr..f§;I»A;f}j.~B3;< 3 I am in the process of buying this land direetiy _fro.ni the] farmers at the prevailing market rateand have alFetid§;'=patd a substantial advance towards the [lprobpertyg The «_;.orin'1ary".

objectives is to establish an Enterpren::tais;'hip..center"on.__ that land. One of the keys to theeticce:-:_s this project ie, the". appropriate location of this5Ce__nter. Shiould" ?,'?1€_ project materialize; the Center will asset 'to "t_;I'ieg State of Karnataka and a ﬁtting tes tamentto your leadership; However yesterday it Ll;«€}_$:"bI'C"_L£glf-'iilC}~,_I'ny."§'lOllC€ that another note has been issued sitbsequent'§y;byyoiirltyjfice, requesting KIADB to acquire the land for.Base,VCorporatio'n Limited. This has led to confusion on the éi'aittts"of.the' land between KIADB and the Comrnerige 8:. 1°ndiis'trieé' departnient'. Given that I have already p_dt-:1=5;7a" Si_gngfiCa.ht'--.' advance directly to the farmers; the aequz1sitio'n*of'rthis property by KL/ADB will request in a sul_:>s3to.ntial 'io°s3_ to rnedna' negatively impact the project I am tooiking 'on? _ .4 .

I therefore~.reqiLess'i:'your help" and intervention in clartfying the status of the landVby._ljreo'o.lditgthe latter order to KIADB. Appre_(:_i'Cite as.S.éstancef * _,Yot;t£§'f¢¢:tit;'i;§iy l """ " "

"'Noo.rjatne fag " V .' the said letter itself the then Chief Minieter 'ordered that the land may be provided to Neoraine Fazal . to treat the matter as urgent. On the basis of the said Wetter written by the 8?" respondent, on 4»/5f200«:L the file has been put up and on 5;' .5/'2C1€}4 the irngmgned notiifieation has; been issued' ' COIY11TiiSSiOITi€IE' <31" KL'--':DB to the '?'~" respondeni, seeking the latter's advice as to whether the said industry ::au1d b.¢ :--;_e:

up in the said area E:n<:1osi:1g Copies of the I'€pf€§§éf1{é1fL~i.Q:f1':. egsf the Ianci ewners as well as the cap}; of ths féfjsri ' the petitioner. In rsssponse to the saitij. feTqii¢'5i._.<"€:5i1.¢'VA77.}V3 respondent after inspection 0f>'di_1e site,_ Wrote reispzoniieﬁf Nani on 28/11,x'2003 as f0110Ws:u§' _ 8% Flcor,";<Si.z,bf1}:s3"Chandra BoseVBu:'zdzng {p:.;bz:c."L:aZ:_:y Buadzng} ;fvI;I €oad--, ABangaEore?E3'6O O01 Phone; 554893-38/383 2 558 8142; 558- 6529» NO.CFE~CE[{L/IGADB}/12OO.352(3(§?if5€?§' DATED 28 NOV 2003 TO: A The Special Deputy Cginbnéaséidner Karnataka In_dustTial Areas?Developrnent Board 1 4 / '2"<_1 ﬂoor;-R.P.Building " r NnV;p'e§.th;L'r:ga R0d,d«,B_q.ngaloreA56O O0] ."VSz;Lb:='V.g%:fcg£);isiiion Qf {and in Sy,No,27, 28 and 29 of A JQEHHIGHQ Agrahara, 'Jerthur Hobli, Bangalore East féaiuk ~ regarding.

Ref: Your fetter dated 3C1,ZQ.2GQ3.

a==a%>.E>;%*%* The proposai rsgferred :0 {his Qﬁice is a>:e::minVeci. site inspeciion K is aése made. 6/;

The prejeei involves use ef {eed and Keriyammana Agrxiiiare Viilage, Beilandur Viiéage and Tank are faliing impact zone. There appears :0 be writ petition _ as informed by viliagers and Bellandur paI1e?§_éig.;eztf:i_;* b opined, that the preposed Zocatiz:~r;." "sui:a;ZT:§£'e_fer-fihe-3 proposed prefect. ¢ __ . _ A _ .

58. On the vefy. §:ext«_V_ 29/11/2003, a further communication was _sen't_sLati1ﬁg as.) ei10Ws:--

' » V 8_¥"~.EZoorﬁ' Sagbhas: Chandra » 'Base Beizcimg; (Public Utility Buiiding} , M.G.Rc(;d, Bcfngal0re~56O O01 ' * Phone; 5551388/383 8142, 558 6520 No.CFE-CELQKIADE;2503-2&2;/5 2 0 BAKED 29 NOV 2003 To; _; ' "

V :'i§v;;gL"Spee§ai_ Eeputy Commissioner L Iﬂfarrzzgttaégcz .It'er;::etI'iaZ Areas Development Board " Z 4X3. 3%? j3,oor;' Ei';P.Buildir1g f's}":';;pC1th;tfi§*:<;:Rea;o£, Bangaiore-560 O01 Sir, AA Sue: Acqzzieitien of Zane in Sy.3\?o.2?", 28 and 29 ef Kerigammezm ékgreizere, Verzhur Habit. Bangaiere East Taiuk ~«« regareiinge Ref: Your Eeiier dated 30.16.2003.

S/gf 3£'<*$>E-93$ (V51 (">\ With reference £0 {he abave, is is is be irgfbrrrzed €rEjw;--.i;.' praposal fbr esiabééshmenii of "Power fjaclc indrzsmal unit is not ideal Since, invoices use Qf lead, which is a ::o>\*i<:;=.A:hec::;gn 'viIV£ggVg:--f;.' namely, Kariyammana Agrahgzra, BéllAa n.dur arid B.é*ZZa;iv:'£'urrV'-- ianicﬁfails within the impact zone! " faithfVLil'£y'V ' V

59. Z:E/ﬁres?'VC§ffLTr§u'riic:ati0ns inspection report submitted by the E311vir0;rm€::13'_r2ii'f'v.'v South Region ----1 of resp0ndé11t:_'irréétihg some of the land owners V\7hOS=C'T1_E1ITl€:S V.,arev11r1c=:r 1ti0r1ed in the said report. The said . iE3"€~aici t0 bévvﬁéﬁéed on the project profile submitted by it states that since the industry propose to ma§1ufac.iz1rr;_. ﬂower backup systems 1.6., lead acid batteriess V'-.th€ Iaizdrsé in questicm were not suitable fer rrranufacture of "'-- ;h_<:" same. Subsequently? on 5/4/2804 anether cégnlrnunicatisn was issued on behalf of KEADB No.1 :0 re$p::>n§er:i 1\§o.'?, srzekirég a Clear and specific opirzian with regard to the p::--:%;itiQne1"s irrdusirial unit. In response ':0 Cammunication daireci 34.2004? respondsni Na? soughi furéher drstaﬁ-S with régarci {G Ehesi p€€iI:iQn€1"s project, S0 1323?; a réiriar and sgpeiétific epiriian Ceuié be givcrr. '"E'h€:*€:«3.ﬁer, 'gherri > (f?

<3 eetegerieally state {hat a rezguest for deietion is made by responder}: No.3 Minister for Science and 'T€ChH01QVgV:,7_',r'._IH terme of the said request a directien was issued_bj%"th.e M Minister and severe} steps have thereafter b€.f?~I3. V:etk_eI:.;f(>r (ﬁe? notifieatien of the lands. Infacﬁ, ir;H i\§0ie categorically stated as follows; _' "This file is relatin$3~..fQ j2::ze'S T. for deletion of la.?2ds." la fizfs .CO'I"lT1€CE'l'OTl, Paragraphs=-- 2' 'I7 " kindly be perusedgf' V -

zit~.C01.5fi_"'dfVﬂfehe file stating that "the earlier _.tI*.Le land may be provided to Nooraine vP1.'SAk."ifs3§5"l§'":6'Ci, the file is submitted to the A'vHer:"Z§-Ie: '_idC.':}AZef ME:zi.sffe.r: for consideration of the matter", T 'e¥,i,ﬁehes:.._Vthe' 'issue.

A ~ _ii:1Aihis context, the eemmunieatie-n addressed to ﬁthe Priizvefpai Secretary ef the Pellutien Conirei Board, based objeeiieris filed by seme ef the land ewnere weuki hegve {Q be eoneidered' Though the ebjeetiens of the land evmere were made :0 the KLADB and inmrn, COFI1F1"£1i}'1iC3iiGI1 wag see: by KIADB re {he fespendeni; Neg? fer its {)§i{iiQf§t and the Depertmerﬁ; ef Commerce and §1"1d'EJS?;E':»£ wee met a igoi CN party to the said C{}H1i}'}tii'liC{:1l,'lOiL nevertheless, in Col.l9 of the file, it is siateci that a letter written by i:,l'l€vV.,lV¥"I.é'i3'l:l:)€F Secretary of the Pollution Control Board is pLil.;"L'i'§)' file, which stated that the proposal of M/ is not ideal frorn the point of ifiefgv of l?_Olli};'i-i:€)'f1.V Board. Thereafter, the K,l.AV.ll},B. sotiglii spee.iv§:oA.ife}5ort: i":'~o3n'=_ the Pollution Control Board, was lie Two things follow frorn jndeelclll was an independent decision to denotify the lands, then forthcoming from the 1'ecord5sl from acquisition, but de1eti:«:i:"'ui:.:<i'§:; of' that is, the said lands have leeased areas. On the other hand, opinion slot:;l§li~t KIADB from the Pollution Control ;%¢as_ only"v.fi.i.,h.'regard to the environmental impact of ' industrial unit and not with regard to "establisli--i--frl--gfan industrial area such on the lands in qn.estions..V 4' Nevertheless, the State Goxrernrnent proceeded to AAdle'n&oilifljs/ the lands in question invoking Section 4 of the Act. according' to the land owners. they had no grievanee 'Hwitlh regard to the establishment of an lflCl'LlS§i"l§;1l area. Their Sriexianee were so ./ >oseoi'a: 2: rains: net/ii,ione:"s §;"1€lLlSl,i'i?il l,,i.fll,f,,¢ V e i 'i"herei'ore, ii is to he only inferreci that the ianri mvners were iv' 9 '§ ('Y3 F I rnetivated by certain vested interest to file ehjeetie-nento K;lADBt who inturn acted en the gttise ef thQS.€v""5'h¥}l€tZltiO§15 l as to obtain an opinion from the r€:sponAd'ent« 'r.>gg:;:t;or;« Control Board, with regard the St:itahtlity_o§ lahtd"3'n'*V.L question for the petitioners and even' uaheenee of there being any a eptntenﬁexpressed by the Pollution Control' the initial and tentative ope;:e::«~;.§%;pré:§se;lQ5 was sought to be given to based on the fact that the Cause pollution to the SUYfD1ll1dl1l.,g Blahsed on the tentative report of Resp_ovnden't~ lands were denotiﬁed. lnfaet, the SUES€qlt€l1.t notdiVngs:-----«tn the file make no reference to the 'lth'e:Potlution Control Board but on the other hand, thé"'in:ér:§és::.'i>r respondents No.3 and 8 were met by the issuanee, of the notification dated 5/5/2004: The immediate " aeatatyet for the denetifteation order was the letter addreesed hy the respondent No.6 to the then Chief Minister on 1 ,1 5 / 2004. it appears that in all these preeeedtngs, the then Minister fer Large and Medium lndne.t,ries, under W'hOS€ juriedietien the respendent Not - Board functions was kept in the dark; .§nt'aet, there is a noting which says that Homfhle 3% CW 5 J Minister {Large and l\/iediurn lndustrles) has desired to peruse the file.

66. The object of the land o_wn,e_rs wssllstlslo. lnot"ther.v reason to denotify the lands as their':.obj[ect'ilws;s_ only 2ig:éL§.nséVr_' the petitioners industrial unit'la_n'd_not against :i,_eq?..:is.ition as , V V such. The State Government__:r:el:ied__V upo'n--:_the tentative Report of the pollution ._ruse to denotify the lands, However 4:5" accede to the vested interestivof herein. it would become vsgnareritl from the Pollution Control.' objections filed by the land owners' issue the denotification. The State; High Cornrnittee had already cleared in principle l:th.e_. the petitioner and despite the allotment of the "lantl .Vvn13.;tl.el*'for the petitioners industrial unit, pending approvetl' lvthe project by the 71" respondent - Pollution Clontroivﬁoard. The reason as to why the first respondent ll took up on itself to obtain opinion front the '3"? .._:*lespondent would have to be interred in the context of the background facts, as noted from in the file. Therefore, in order to earnotzﬁage the illegality of the action, prior to the issuance oi' the denotificationr the first respondent KEADB i C)\ OW ) were ed: a final siege and iiherefere, it was nei ad3g'ie::hiei:4'¥tie'~.. delete Sy.Ne,29/2 iron: acquisition. H eireuinetanees, Sy.N0.29/2 does n<':}iWfii:ci«_ impugned denotifieaiien. Thereferei in igziiy eonsideifed the exercise of ciiseretien ieadingiﬂnp i0.'V:the impugned notification Viiaied is ﬁiviieiiyi illegal, arbitrary and is an insiziineei of power' for an V'ie¥i'i;aueiu1eni. it is unf0rtunateg'i7h?ébe_i.. yvhe is an experienced politician'anii;":iiiiiii§ni.streitei9 yielded; to the inﬂuence of his cabineiV'e_o1ieagi,ieV }3:i1f_1V hear" ziéiu ghter. VHa.\'7iI"i'g_}_'i§'i'(7i that the denotifieation issued in the 'inSiant..g_:ase«illegal, reference may be made to a decision of iiieﬁpex the ease of Express Newspapers Pvt. 'V LTci;, ..cinVci"c}.Vthes v, Union of India and others [AIR 1986 wherein, the action {if the iJ;;,GeVern0r of Deihi, ereieiiing deineiitien ef the buiidinge beienging in the Express Vi WNew's Papers was ehaiiengeci in a writ petition under Artie/ie:

32 ef the Censiiiuiien of India. The Apex Cour: xvhiie eendeinning the aeiien ei the then Liﬁeverner, Deihii fer having ini$;;ie.ieei aeiien en preperiiee beienging ie the Cenirai §;«;»?-i Czevernnieni; heid as i'eiiewe:~ '%§' 5 <.'§"\ C 0 \ Minister to oenotify the iancis is indeed an instance of niaiafide exercise of discretion. The submission ,ot7-_tne eounsei for respondent No.3 that as a coneernetiif'rnother, respondent No.3 wrote to the Chief Ministeriﬁisgw "'.;\i:\Erf101i:Jv' "

without substance. It is not that the powers that he would ever .»ta-he COf1C€I'I1 of a mother expressed acquisition of land. The abuse of i\io.3ifand also the role of responcient name and position to thaeernment and the first respon€ti.entu_i. in yielding to such pcuoniciernned. in the instant case, thve'p!rincipies'.ihave stated prior to scrutinizing the records' to the exercise of discretion by aiithorities and the approach of the Court in squarely applicable in the instant case. documents produced by the petitioner i/Avhich" supported by the csriginai records which have been "_AAsn:hn;itted by the learned Govt. Piearier anti aiso the records H sinbniitted by the counsei for respondent Ne? and the analysis of the said cieenrnents $l€1';'t1"i§? bring out the eorrnpt i1ZC2t'£'v'{E8 of respondent No.3 and respondent No.6 in soniehew saving the ianeis in question from acquisition fer % > >' R'?

1 G3 go 1 their vested interest; Therefore Aririexure 5/5/2004 is quashed' ?1. With regard to the lir: "their Governmental action must be taker; :'--particii1ariy. : powers are vested with the StEiLt€t...:'_&CfQ§7€fYIi.IIt!3.I1V'53,.Aif}; of which, discretion mustbe.'exereiseti'~ii'i"aeeertiiiig with law, the follow decisions are ji&ee.1f.tie'd-rsrcourisel for the petitioner. H V' V t t

a) In case of W.B. And Others [(2001) has held that primary action rru_1s't be good faith, belief and ought to be s'upp5rt,e::i.with on the basis of the state of law -

if th;»e§aetien is Gthevrwise or runs counter to the same the aetieri eaLn«net:b2it be ascribed to be ma].-a tide and it would be apiet-in eX'er_eise;; efjudieiai power te eeuntenanee such action

--V aridxuset thehseirne aside for the demands aetisn ciothed with vberie, ficie reason and necessities of the situation iii . eieeereianee with the iaw, But if the same runs eeunter, law it esurts weuid not he in 3 pesitieri is eeutiteriariee the same £ With regard to ihe formation sf opinion. in the faery same case, the Apex Court has observed as foilowse b "There are decisions galore of this Coz.:ri 513;' -I~ regards the issue efformaiion of opinion..bui;.u;e:"

need not deiain ourseiues infibis"jucZgInenbi'i':_oV 5 consider the issue since eaeh rm:L'y_.be decided en the maieri~:iLs«.___ aUoiiio_ibie fo.r""s_ueri formation of opinion ~ uforrna:ionb" spiriioriw obviously is deperideni L§pé%L"%:i'CiiEQb£€ and cannot be [inéje of the administrative ClLLlffAL¢:?IfIig;.V Efxzlsiebrieev 'ejf--d.ii:istifiable reasons in mciifier opinion is the p;~m¢:,p;ii.. .- arty Contrcvaction would Fzrgbeefgfeei seime being ascribed as arb'iire,ry power which is aelmiiiediy. oi? law. "

'_ b) iihe case'--ofv_"(}'ornmon Cause A Registered Society 1:2,;"E7r;io.ri*of:fnclia and others [AIR 1996 SC 3538], the MAgéx.ie5u~gi%;'e»haeb eioserved as foﬁowsw A ""';C}ovez*rinien: distributes iargesses in various forms. A Minister who is the executive head of the oieparimerii Concerned distributes these berzeh/its and iurgesses. He is elecieéi by {he peopie arid is elevaieoi to ca pesiiiori where he heicis a {rust er: behciiﬁf of the peopie. He has to deaf with the peoples' property in eifair s:iri<:Zj:,isi manner. He esririoi eommii breach Qf ihe irusé regsosed in him by {fie peeple. 35 X,/,.

M5} 0} In case sf Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jain and o.tiie1*s {(1997) 1 SOC 35 it has been held ihus:~ '-12. The Minister hoids pubzgii~"a;3'ice :hozgg¥ii"1ih¢Vi"

gets constitutional status V'<V1n.Ci~.dir',ii€SVV peijbrmeci are public aciso: duties is iihe»'?ioir;ief of public office. Theref'ox:e',"~. he oii>es"iiferii:;in aecouniabiiiiy for,--.ihe "udone of 'vciuties performed.

:::.V3:V ' I2. Wheni;a':-.Goi2err:Iiieni-<.1ih:"gffieeij'niisuses its powers*;figiif:Aﬁti;pe'i_g,:_ to individual MiniSieI",/C§0LiiIiCil" '_ «. who are of The Minister is reispolnsibieVirioi..onVlij'foi'.__'his actions but also for ihe iiieau Zi§ure&i:.1erats who work or have worked uimder' i ..... >z<4<:z<>::>zc of irnproprieiy is repiaeemeni Aqiqf v€7£'f3ii.i:3'7V:iZ'C motive for a private one. When u sasiisfeieiion sought in ihe performance of duties is * jofmuiuai personal gain, the misuse is usucilig " iermed as eorrupiiorz. The heider of a piibiiz: office is said is have misused his posiiiori when in pursiiii of (2 private saiisfkieiiiori, as disiinguisfzeci from gsiibiie inieresii he has derie something whiieh he oiighi no: iii) have doriei )%\"VK° Mg 'MD I I 2?. The Court, therefore, iooaiti be required to Consider' whether the policy sought to be relied on and oiirectetti by the Minister was tofttrtfier pubiio. good or was a means to fritier away the p_z;iI::'itsj_~ ~ A' property for personal gain or to misuse power.

30. We have given our"eo'rcsidered. .tt20L£'ght'':VtoV ' the fervent and persuasive...o1ea"Q_f Shri' There are two of first is that this Court has t-hie every obvious aitza power or misuse siowould send wrong: vjoourtvijiegitimises wrong i€io:v'e:2en'.;}oroe in the contention oj*gsz--:;~i v.sVa::§;-zeta' allotments would be caneelieci by this .. it would be virtually gimpossibteg for 'the': respondents to acquire "resiaeatial f;>iots----«'anyLvhere now in a city like _t ;1'£?/i}3L£:r'«.iti".I)_ieLL? of the great increase in prices of "i"3"t€Cl2"liiITi€'. We have not been abte to A overtook: or ignore this facet of the case; more so, oeeause it may be that the respondents herein 4_ tiarii not obtained the attotments by taking ..'re<:oiirse to any iiiegat means, So, we tiavejett persuaded to agree with Shfi Sanghi that we may not invoke our power under Article 336 to undo the zirngsriigneti order of the High Court' ever: if the same be iiiegaii a/eeoraing to itS, :3} in the ease of Bangalore Medic-ai Muddappa and others [AIR 1991 st: 2902}, the Court has observed that an illegality er any aetioh" : V' ta law does not become in aee0rdane.e'rwii;h law heteatuee' itis done at the behest of the Chief the "S_téL:eV. one is above law. in a dem0e;.tac,y_ what-prevailvé 'is; }.a_w and rule and not the height of the persxeriexereisiiggt the ptiwer.

e) in Bahadurfsinh Gritttiltiﬁg;tﬂjagdishbhai M.Kamalia the Apex Court has held Statutory authority at the behveet'e't*' statutory function is ultra that by the impugned order, public _ interestt has';.be'eri"'§iVen a complete go-by and a 'xi'«--.2za1ueih1e:b_A---geubiie was doled out at the behest of x2grE'iQ:_}1re~<iu--ty»h0urid to protect the same.

tizxvtttegise cf Mrs.Behroze Ramyar Batha :2. Special V' ti.jjz,i;zid.._Aé'quisition ojﬁcer [ILR 1991 (4) Kar. 35561, a ' Bench of this Court has feliowed the decision at the ~ Ahex Ceurt in the ease of Express Newspapers :23. Union ef indie {AIR 2985 SC' 872,11 referred to stipra, in the Context of frame; er: pexvei' arzﬁ the feétewirig extract is a;:zpeeite:~ i% "3 ZS. Fraud en power voids the ontier if ii is not exercised bonotfidejor the end design. There is a distinction between exercise of power in faith and misuse in badfaiih. The former a.;;fi§es§.. 'T i when an authority rnisuses its power in bretzeh law, say, by taking into aeeounit"bona;]'ide. ';:in~I V with best of intentions some e'2;traneto'usma~ti:ers"

or by ignoring releL>antV.ern_atters'.._ render the impugned act o:<:or<der iiitrgi would be a case offraud on--«rioi:;ersA, The in bad faith arises'--«zi§iizen'«._th<;V;iexercised for an improper motii>e,'t's.i1y:."_to girivate or personal grutig-e orﬁgfor: oengeance of a Ministe__r.--<is .Szing<h:lUs. of Punjab, (19542 §4.,V.sci:n;73é: '(AiRi.'}19é34"sch:;, 733). A power is exereised. its repository is motivated "tou}ards those who are direettyéb affected" jit's._"e)terCise. Use of a power for an piirposehother than the one for which gooiber cw---nferred is main fide use of that _pe1ber.'«'ViVS~ame is the position when an order is ether than that which finds A place. in jthe order."

Vtt"Wit11 regard to the withdrawal of notifications of

-..ti'.-afsguisition in the Case of State Govt. Houseless Harijan '"asVE'rnployees' Association v. State of Karnataka and Gtherzsi f {20G1) 1 S636 618}, the Eapex Court. has held that where erdei' of wiihdrawal {:5 an €2>i€Cu'Ei'%/'€ action {Land er /«£513 \) < 3"\ I eornpany which may have equally sound reasons or pe.rttap:s more which might persuade the State C%over:irne«n_'t---..:: _ reverse its decision txrithdraxadng from aequi_s~£tion".~eVThough these observations are made in the esntext sf aeqnisitli'on.r_for;.e .l a Company under the provisions Qt th§'Lar1d and though in the instant case, the petitioners Company the llnurlpose of respondent No.1 to establish" an nevertheless the ratio of the v§fotrlld.l"beetﬁplteable having regard to and two other prornised the lands in question.

Therefore the regard to hearing the company, who _ in v.:l13osi'-;ioAr;_l oflllla beneficiary, is a mandatory A.whtelh""has not been done so in the instant ' l A ~l:v?:T.onnse1 for respondent No.1 has relied upon a l' ' "few deetsjons in support of his submissions, .l "The Apex Court in the ease of Special Land l V' "Aequisition Qjﬁcer, Bomhay and Others :2; M/s...Gadrej and Boyce {AIR 198'? SC 2421]§ wherein the Apex Court held that the State Qsvernrnent had acted in best :Enterests if:

the decision referred to supra and has held that; Governrneni cannot be compelled to coniihiief acquisition proceedings and is cornpeieni _-to""cad'nce'i= the notifications issued under Section KIADB Act, by Virtue of its poweijonderdliectioni' Karnataka General Clauses 'can be exercised before taking dhere can be no contra opinion proposition expressed in the same has to be subject to exercised must be in accordsndcecnrith a_r1d::not forény oblique purpose.

c) In':_W.--E".1172'Z;{2'QQ6V.eLr1d'connected matters, disposed of an 13/4';'20r10,"various"crorripanies who would have been the beneﬁciaries .o;fVthe Véicquisition made by the respondent the notification issued under Section 4 of ihe'«Aci,'v~s;fier ids-suance of a final notification under Section 28(A4}4__of This Court held that merely because the ' 'petitioner.-'-- companies had preferred certain iarids before the V' jV"-;Vg"g:;<¢~;;,ii:sL.;iiori was completed, the Very sanie lands coiiid not be soiighi by them by issuance of a direction to the State Government io conciude the acquisiiion. The facis of the said case are quite difiereni io ihe facis of ihe present case in as rriiich as {he Si/ante Goeernnaenii exercising power 5?'?

81, :

acquisition charges on i3;' 9 / 12002 and also has uiiderialrren various acts for {he purpose oi' establishing the Therefore, a plea regarding prorriissory estoppel V' raised by the petitioner. Before.:"'an/Sweringiu contention, it would be of relevance to referxto l:l1_€f..C.<3:l€l3i'2ti:3:_r:l'i7., decision on the Doctrine of in AIR 1979 SC 621 in the case___oi:'fM)':s,pMoi'iial,._Pqrliampat Sugar Mills Co.Ltd., vi' r...{zII'\}g',e_;' Pradesh and Others]. in the ease; through Bhagwati J opined that the d0CU'H1'3 Of neither in the realm of contraernor The true principle of prornissorj,Iupestopp.elhe that where one party has by his words or _oonduet*. rriade to the other a clear and JV'«--.uneqlsu'iVoeal promise -------- --whieh is intended to create legal reiatioriswor effect. a legal relationship to arise in the future, §r""i';¢:énd:ng that it would be acted upon by the 'another party to whom the promise is made and it is in fact so f_'aeted«--.upon by the other party, the promise would be binding ' on; the party making it and he would not be entitled to go it upon it, if it would be inequitable io allow him to do so iiavirig regard to ilie Cl€:€:§lii"1;§;S winch have iaiqen place between the pariies, and this would be so irrespeetiire oi' %:rzi \ to N l whether there is any pre»~e>;:isting relationship between-.._th.e parties or not. According to the Apex Court, _ promissory estoppel need not he inhihitedgl limitation as estoppel in the strict S€::3_/:'1S€{:-Of; equitable principle evolved loyilt-he for and there is no reason why it be limited application by way of statetfl that there is no reason in logic: estoppel should also notajbleljpatleileiloleiosla if necessary to satisfy in order to attract the applieeihi'lit§'.p_ot promissory estoppel, that the provrnislee, on the promise, should suffer any tletrinient. A"v_'W}1"étt is necessary is only that the ll"~.proIv:iise§..eisiiguld lllha've"Valtered his position relying on the proniie€'§'--v.>_l'By.V:Vcietriinent if it is meant injustice to the protnisee whifehl: would result if the prornisor were to reeede ofrom his §ﬁf'OI}"llS€i then detriment would Certainly Come in as neeepssary ingredient. The detriment in such at case is not ' sloinellprejotiiee suffered by the prornisee by acting on the Wprornisei but the prejudice which Woulcl be caused to the prornisee, ii' the proniisor were allowed to go back on the prornisei if this is the kind of eietrinient (:or1te::ipiatetl. it would neeesssirily be present in every case of promissory apple 1 CO La) 5 estoppeit because it is on account of such detrirnent which the prornisee weuid suffer if the prornisor were_4vtr;o"-._d::t differently from his promise, that the Court wou1d.eons~ider:'ii: _ inequitable to aiiow the prornisor to go baeétdiupdoil promise.

76-. In India not only dVoctri'ne:ofv5prornissogy wave: been adopted has its Y€C0gI1iZ€d 88 affording er person to whom the is requirement of eonsideratioi.3.:VVheds stand in the way of enforeetnent"effv5sueh§VJproinise. doctrine of promissory estoppelvvdhasaiso against the Government and the defence"-. based e_r1"~~~'eXecutive necessity has been ._oate.gjdrioa.:1iy.Vr_ negeitived..«' Where the Government makes a prornise" intending that it wouid be acted on by the }ji'omiseefj_ar£d. in fact, the prornisee, acting in reiianee on Cit, aitdersvxdhisvposition, the Government would be held bound 'dine ioroniise and the promise would be enforceable etggiindst the Governnient at the instance of the prornisee, notwithstanding that there is no Consideration for the prornise and the promise is not recorded in the form of 8. formal Contrast as reguired by Art. 299 sf the Constitution. 3i::e I xgr Fm I circumslanccs, {ha scccmd praycr sought by §%:s::'pvci;i.fcVi%_3:c£c:< has aisc to be gramcd.

813 The rcspcvndcnt authcrit.icS.. are ,,.Z§zi1fcc{cd'3*. '£0 conclude the acquisition prccxzicdingg of the acquisition notification al1csAt"fhcc.:1fc:r;\ci:s_ in qizésticn £10 the pctitioncr in accordance xvit1<1'Ia\X>'-.

82. I:1_f._i1e allowed' Parties to bear theirVQ}v1é__c;0sts'L ' % fégggzgggi

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court