Sri K K Kathare vs State Of Karnataka Represented By Its ... on 5 August, 2009

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri K K Kathare vs State Of Karnataka Represented By Its ... on 5 August, 2009

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT  

DATED THIS THE 5*'DAY 0F%AU:3usr,     J

BEFORE;

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE' Agmnn Byiiambpé?

WRIT PETITION Na.%:k4?5s%c:F_;oe<; «if-M_REs 1
% CON1~§ECTI'EDV.WI"FH"'V--   
WRIT PE'}'ITIO?;\I No;9972"0§ ;90j'?{GM-RES)
WR1T'VPEiFiTI()N 149.55 or 20u6(GM--REs)

WRIT PETITION.I§ié;Q.VI{.{1?§8"(§f Q0§§5: :W ,5

B

BTWIZEEN-:'   

 

1. s;;.;:.s:.%;.;aum,  J H

ex) 

31%).' Late Kxﬁghna.  "KaiI:1a1*e,
 about 66"}rga;fg: _

' f

  %%s;a.TLar,s.-«%1\«:.1§.r:azhare,

Agszi 359:5 43 years,

Sri44;'}~I..I;£;_I<:V2a4li1arc,

"  ..SH§}.Late M.K.Kathare,.
  about 36 years.

'   _ :2?'-.1} am Residing ai Nu-34!2,
V  "Victoria Road,

Saicni,
Hubli--~580 020.
Rapmscnied by Fewest uf Aliumeyg

3



 

Holder Sri.C.N.Dc-vanand,
S/0, C.Nagabhushana Rae,

Aged abou148 years,
Rfa.N0.34i, Sai Kmpa,
2nd Cross, 20"' Main,
Namiizti Layout,
BangIaore--96.

(By-Sri. D.Ramdas and   .AA3§u}nggrca1es)

AND:

.

Represented by fits' fSe.=<:§1*étary, Vidh.-mun Bangalércfﬁéﬂ 091 L "

V. A_ . M133 I(_2rI;a[akéi"3£:<s.£.:: ."fex£i3cs, _ (in Liqeidation) ' by the Oﬁiciaf I..£quidat1>r, Building, '" Banga_lp':e::.'_ ..RESPONDENTS ; -- %'(B}? ijecpak, Advocate fur Rcspundenl-2 '~«."Smt..*%._..R,Sharadhamba, Additional Government Advocate for _ Rcsptjndenl 130.1) 3 ' Censﬁnrﬁon of India, praying declare by writ order us' direction that the Kama M3115 {Acquisitien and transfer) (Amendment) Act 2804, Act 19* $1! ;FE'§.%ITI:€)NERS.

This Writ Pciiliun is ﬁiczi undtzr Articles 226 and 227 of the E?

issuing an appmpriatc [aka Cu-«zptzraliva: Textile Nu.20/O5 is null and void and incunsislcnl wi£lrx' .L__f1cv and allow this Writ Peution with cogs and _--grant]_ather bVez:.cﬁm and etc, WRIT PETITION No.997,;QE_29,9J - ' BETWEEN:

1. Sri.EIumalh Irkal, V. szo. Late Axjunsaxrkas. % Majur, Aged about 50 Years, " , V Residing at Ne;324/B1,-'3"'» Cros's_._"-.. V Amvind Nagar, Old HubIi.=S80f324. % _% ..PETITIONER.

(By   é    Advuuaics)

 *  1.  '

V '«Repr¢senI§6~ by its Chief Secretary, " .3/'i&h.a'f'n.a; Srnudha,

- 1saagaIu::;--55o ma.

' 2. Stats: Texiikzs, .. {in Liquidation) " _ Rﬂpmﬁﬁﬂibd by the Oﬁﬁcial Liquidaiur, ._ IVFIQOI, D & F wing Kcndriya Sadana, Bangaiore-S60 Q34, " ..RESPC2NDENTS itﬁlukii! This 'Writ Ptztiiiun is filed under Articles 226 and 227 uf {he Consﬁtutigsn ef India, praying direct that " The Kamataka Co» 5 uptzxaiivc Texliic Milk; (Acquisition and Transfer) ('Am§ﬁzimcnl) Act 20%, Act N020 OF 2005 enclosed as Annexare-A"i3_ _'t:uI's'.,and vuid and inconsisisnl with the Constitution and .'_a.;§it:r.n.;*VV'~*..}__1_L:i~.V--'.T' ;_W'ﬁi Petitisner with costs & eta, WRIT PETITION No.55 OF 2006 BETWEEN:

1.

SmE.Susht:::lamma, Wfo. Hanumanﬂ1ra0.{)eghwa}de," :4 V 1' L' ' Age64!/ears, ._ ' Occ: Household, . Sri...."3:.'}'§LH % - i 71 Age 45uYaars', * '. % Occ: Adv9cat,ef * ° . %%%%% . _S;>':». Pianurnaanﬁzrao mshpande, ' 53¢ '37'Y'ea:fS;--.

._ 'v'g"}§;c_"1'?;iI_:~;inesgs;"

s:g.A25haya, S§o§'Ir1_:i;nnmanmrae Deshpande, ' 'Age. 30 years, * Business.

Smi. Iayasshree, W10. Ramesh Gudi, Age 40 years, Occ. Househnld.

(By. Sri.S-S.Hava:ri, Advuc-aic }' _V A1} are residing a1No.439, Shantiniketan, 5*" Cross, P.B.Road, Hubli-25.

AND:

I-

S{a{e0fKan1a!ak2:, Represented b:,!.«'Sz=;cre"§jm'§!, - To GOV¢fﬁIIEéﬂt,:{w' V _ 4' Dcparunegii d17._E5a:*I§::_men$a_r'y,.__ _ Aﬂiiir:-; aIui..Ri=£§§$lr¢£§bn, ~ Bangaioreﬁéﬁ 0i}ii;.w'-- « _ Secrefary 1:5 " ' é '"

Depa111nén1; of Commgrce and Industry; M.S;Bm'Iding;-. ' . B_?v:;€:~*:g:1EI_§V>'2**:==:;_560'{"}i}Ii.. %%%% § A gm! :L§Qﬂ:;d£--i0f, . (I§'_ii3Cii3£i~v.1G Court 0f Karnataka, Rangalgjée-S(:O 054' 'V Respundenis 2:9,} and 2.

6£_}_:"Flut_:zf,' F wing, Keizdriyfa ..RESPONDENTS ' " Sri Decpak, Advocate For Raspundcni nu.3, Smt, A.R.Sharadamba, Addiﬁonal Government Advocate for **$* 8 « % L ' ; . . PE":':*r;oN}:Rs "

This Writ Petition is ﬁled under Ariic-lea 226 and pf 111::

Constitution of India, praying quash The Ka::iat3;ka"'.vCo- opcrativc: Textile. Mills (Acquisition and Tmnsfer};v"(A_§1a.:_1:dé23c:2i) Act 20%, vide Anxmxure-E as unconstitutiorgﬁ' i'i-erxaéfied» beyond the competence of Stale: Lcgisiaiurc i:;_t:a:£'z41§};:,s ihc Lazxgi in Question is concerned & etc, These: petitions having bqcrl hcziard f€Sl;iI'g'6d"0f3 and coming on for pronouncexncng 0f orders Vthisv Caurt' dcliwswd the following-

Thcst: p¢:lili:()r:._:s iiiiiéaxid of to-gc:1hr::r as they arise u1idc:r--.sim.iia;v'ﬁitccmsigitiues;

2. Iii1.__4w1"i1 v.i;i%i?58/2906 the petitioners' east: is as _____ ' are joini owners of land in survey 110.123 CFS m3.47ﬁ wand N33, measuring about 5 acres :§£ Mariyan Timmasagara, Hubii Talc;-k, Dharwac} These lands ware kmsed to M/3 Southern Mamiha ggfizzzzing and Weaving Comgany Limited, Hubii. The said Icasc~h-aid rights were sﬁtu have been sold in favour of W3 New Gujarat Comm Mills Limited, Calcutta 39559; And in the year 1959 the said cu:%a;5any« hag, ;;;1ua=%3u;,;am 1 lease-hold rights in favour of Mills Limited, Dharwaal, 5 co--upe~§-gm smy; gar 197$ the lands were sub--leasr..%i"win G.Nf;}12§1evappd and Sons, 21 ﬁrm. In In ihc year 1986, the in urdcr iu revivc the Mills, Textile Mills Limited (Acqui;;i:im; mi? 1935 (Act M29 of 1986) ((i1eIt:inaﬁ£§r.._<1j£:f:;ri4éx.laaltﬂ me 1935 Act', for brevity) aspen:-iaiiy V. Z ""Th.::..Govcmmcn£ thus luck (war the lcaawhuid rigiiiss management of the mills in terms of a 29.12.1987, issued under Section 8(1) of the Act. Huwuwsr, inspit-3 ef the Sam: Guvt.:1'nmt:n1's the company which was than inwzporaied zmder {ht} : _,C:j3mpan§as Act, 1956, bcxzame a sick unit. and it was held by the A ' Board for Indusuiaf and Financial Rcaonsiraction as an txzemomically unvéabk: git under Eh: pmvisiuns of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisiuns) Karnataka State Indusirial Invcslrneail»AAD¢£r::.Iupm::nA{:_\f$x.§r1§i§f:;;,Li{§n, i. a Stale Financial Corporaliun, was a1§jJ«_;§h*!\cd ,'Lh~.,: Sciiing to sail the assets uf {he the sought. to be woundmup. A before the Company Court in The same was alluwcd be wound-up by an urder Liquidator thus had the custodfiuf. company. I Pursuant to tht:

direction 2i'.~£1s',liL"f.1 State Industrial Imicslrnesni _ A' I}c\{»a:'3:;;1;%t:;fc£;1 by the Govczmmcnl of Kamataka --~ ii of the company fer safe, including the land b6§:a;§'g,Aing_' peliiiuneers, uf which the mmpany had acquired ' Vgmly £iI€_1%':§%z3%€*hiJld rights. The petiiiuncrs had thus chalienged the way of a writ pciiiion in W? 4590/3999. The pciiiiun ' ailuwcd, aﬁcr conivsi, by an ordzsr daiesd 11.1.2001. This was ' aiﬁrmcd in appczds, prcfrmeci by the Siam. 3 The pctiiiuncrs had appmachcd the comggay % [iitxi an appiication in CA 762i':.U03'=iIi Pt:»tiiig31ii T 1493998, seeking l'ﬂC(.}V61'y of By an order dated 27.10.2005, t}1ei"z'iir:ii;'}!icatinﬁ twin; it direction to put tiic The:

petitioners were _aIsu the dcbzis and mac-hinciy mi 'of-vf%s.14.42 takh. A Sale in this rcgani. In this baukgriQ 11nd,--i -i has cnacieti the Kamalaka Ce- upcrativc Trggztitt-. and Transfer) (Amendment) V. " { (hcrtsinaﬂcsr referred to as 'the 2085 Act' brgwi<tjy')i_';t. The said Act envisages the acquisition of ia.:3ds9 the purpostzs of tin: textile mills, with i"..,rt:trus;3z;i§{iive cﬂ'e-Lti, Burn the date of the Parant Act. It is this i if is undtsr chaﬁcnge.

3. In writ petiiiun 5532006, the case of the, petiiiuntsxz-2 is as Fallows :

{>7 H) The ptzliiiuners are the joint uwncrs uf the in survey no.l6,l7,l9B bearing C-TS 110.99 guntas of Mariya}: Timmasagara, lf)_isii'ic"1: .

Thtsse lands had been taken on lease Ejrii ﬂrxc»vcryi'i*:>i1i'ic«iitills rcfentsd to in w1>147ss;2oo5 agxaiglm :.ia3¢.;;.3;.;,i,5.;,.5i:1i1lc similarly l.!'dﬁSfGI'l'Gd -- siizce apfniricrnaIz»i§ lands haw:

bean treated as a uumpt3eiilei_uniil.ija;ll The petitioners are similarly aggri§\'.e;£iv..by V' petitioners are claiming f'd£:£)t't:f:f' Lif. 'fats-:;:§'t:s§%i£iz1' vi' the lands.

1. 41.. in 9§;72;'2007, the peliiiuncr is {his owner of i i .§;{).I5giiislring CTS N998, Vv'ard No.3 measuring 8 Timmasagara, Hubli Taluk, Dharwad _ Disli*§*s;{_ was alsu leased to the Textile Mills and has H M ii lllﬁ wine: history :3!' transfer uf le3s:::- bald rights. The aiéglitiiicc uf events vcsiing wiih [126 2805 Act applies in these V ll as well. Hemmer, the pcfiliuncr had filed a civil suit in {)3 2609.002 before the Cuuri of this Addiiizmal Civil Jutlge, Hublig Z H seeking recuvtsry uf pussessiun of the lands. The: was decreed as on 20.32.2003. The State: has ﬁitzzi the same in RA 25/2007 which is said to be ;;,,§% Cuur! of the Civil Judge (Senior l:)!'Vi%i£}I3::)..}';i:¥.lBil',. hi 4' A s--s The State: has resisted if):-,{iiio1"3s involved and on the basis uf ---- 3."s' Ebert: is little dispute on Jhcts or the are evidenced by doeu1ng:ii{sTVo1*iVf1_'at in dispuls.

S. If of ihe petitiuncrs that: the 1986 V. '_ fcsféiccguisiiiun and transfer of the mills by the Slaiz:

'Gxiirs:n1'n,six§: "~»igﬁ1' public interest and to zmsurc the cunﬁnued Thﬁ Act provided that the right and initsresi of lcssesf lessee in wlaiiun to the Mi-ils stood irarxsfetred to jV"'V'{Aiiw.»1{i.3Ei;-xrtzrtzriltsxzi. It was slaicd that the tzffeta {If vcsiing would be V. aii 'assets, lease-huid rights am} pmpcrﬁcs ad: the Itsssur and ' insane v-maid be deemed to be includmi in {hes miils and that such pmpcriiss stead vcsicd in the Guvmnmcni. It was pmsidcd lhai an 3 12 amount uf Rs.446_S9 laid: to be paid as i vesting of lhc milis in the Govemme~ii1_ ' 1 The interest of the lcsrs§J;;_"na1rii£:!),fi,ii'Karn:i:lizi;3:.;i:

Textiie Milk: Limited, at the iiriiéi 985 inti) force was only the :ii!t1 bIIl0\'itii3i£iii'i)iiC property - lhc titlc rcxrxaincdwfviih properties of me milis i did not include the xiaas endorsed by this Court in tin: {Li above.

Ii i§.iiiit3i}:ilit:n£i.ii{:di ii.?r_v1éi:i.:_iii!'zv: abject of the Act was to rcvivc the I§=ndcf"i§....gg..«proﬁ£ making nniity. This effort faiicd eﬁbri was madz: by the State: Guvcmmcni for ia company ulliznaiciy having been urdercd it} be yvunnd-viii), the ubjcci Of Li}?! Aux was no Iongar rcicvani and the rendcmci obsolete and had spun: iistsif nut. The ....Aimcndmcnt Act seeking it.) amend an Act whiizh is cebsuicic is therefore an exercise: in fuii 'by and a biaiani ailzzmpi {<3 illcgaiiy 33 acquire land that is nu iungcr availabit: for Textile Miils or the Company and "t':is1iv{j;=._iL:';c:1iI ': T. woundwup, the same is irratiunzgi. It is contended that the with #1 View in acquire: the ta éﬁagic the salt: of the same in cnsulfz: private unsccumd creditors objaul ef acquisition docs Ifiiis -Afzxicndmené Act is nut protected by Artie}: 3ICLr)_Vf i31cVVCofis_£i1a1:Eui0n uf India as it does not in any way < giv§.*;' 1;; 311$/7{3.{' ..£.he:'dirm;livc principles of State: Puiicy. The "V'!}::x£:'-..peti1iu:1crs places reiiamzc an the foilowing 'j-gzujlgrpuri of limit cast: :

Sugar Mills Comgxmgy Linziied cmd Mather vast

-ifgéian oflrzdia mzosam-, AIR 20$: SC' 292 C "'ﬁ}€ Viamlberz .4;:s5h..=a' Pale} vs, Vczisfalzen Aslwkbhai mg; mi others, .41}? 2008 SC 2675 Z»

c) .4nzg' G073; and others vs. H0131 .4ssociati<.:ﬁ_j:'0fT' 01112.-rs,.IiIR 2003 SC 663 A _ _ kk

d) De*vimIerSing}1 and 0:hem\.g.%s;azg«% {,;.m,~az, 200330 261 % % Vk % A k' kk

e) Chairmcm, Indore A15-Pz§re Immsml Cock and Chemicals 20G?SC 2458 ﬂ V (2007) 10 SCC 443

g) vs. .Maddula Rafnemulli % I1) vs. State of Punjab and olhers, 2A£%07g11gsCw*659%2« and others Vs. Projeci e:;z~h¢-zm Viafya Sikshak %% (23%) 2SC'C rm 3') Petroieum Ccxrpamiion limited vs. Dar-izmﬂhapur % ééemimimkrg (200.5) 7SC'C' 627 ' u .15}; Stafe ofifiiar Pradexh cam' others, vs. Mdmﬁmn AIR 2005 3C 488 g 15 I) Slam ofﬂxmil Nada vs. Aruorzm Sugars ' 326 :11) Union cf India and Oihemjvs. T others, (1994).? SCC 450 ' _ ' re) Slate of Gujarat and La! Lat' Sung' artduihers, (3933)2 sec: % jk k

0) Seervai c¢;:;:::g;ae»:.::«L;z»% HL%k.z;2£::;;nk%k% .. 44"' Amendment ~

p) The Stziie 3231 Singh, AIR 1952 32:' 252 Q} ». $!ate c.fM'aa}'rya Pracziesh, AIR 1965 M1?;'7 (p*3:3;:' 23;

V ._'1'}x;;:"~21i::iz§ii::.__axt: rtsiieci upun is: emphasize the foﬁewing pmpu3;m.% % 'kgisiaiion made by the State to give cﬁéci in its:

4 ' §_;gi-$l£i:§ve policy must I101 eiihur be uiha-ﬁres the Consiituiiun of n K lingfia or the Pawn! Act. The right it: pmperiy is mai 9123}! a % [Imnsa:u:;ona: right bu: also 3 haunmz tight. The pmccdurt: 1.-ad dawn fur dcprivaiioz: (harm? musi be scmpulousiy compiimi with. 43

'V "§'i3n(§xvs 'J " « .,._ 16 One, uf the esscmtiai ingredients warranting exercise 1 a uni' cmincni domain is public purptase.-. puffs-Lr$:t: Vﬁiilizltii-.1136' j any different when legislative po\arm:"iVs of List III 01" cm.-, smmh SchéJ'u.§§"ip mg C«.;:is:.iV1;;::iV§3:§ﬁii'iﬁdia. A lcgisiaturc cannot Icgisla¥ie.V'£o--da5/"wivih z:§$fz:1fcnuc;:'i6' aﬁiluaiion that obtained 20 years age during [hat pazziod To do §s=u*.yc§uId and a ncgatiun ofhistmy. L A % & 'ﬂu: learned Advocate. General Shri Ashuiz. on be-haif of the State submi£s as 1121:} in wp4227x2999, by its order am; VV . the lessor was not the uwncr of the land and " } havi:;;g ﬁiimctcé the Stair: Guvemmcni nul in aucéian or scii the ' moperty 9f the Miils unicss and anti} the ownership 0? [ha " Iand is acquired by the Gmrcmmcni in accordance wﬂh Iaw. 8 17 The ksarntsd Advucakt: Gttncral clarifies that whiIt:]e:z1;1c{ing the 1986 A125. ii was assumed that the lands uhhf:

6"' lcssur. The 1986 Ad having alsu received Prcsidcnl as required under Article: '. objections of the Act indicaiesihult tI1u"aa=L;V'uisili(§f1" ...tm£:sfér L2?' [he Mills was in public iﬁEGIB1;£"v.a1i£j_ lo.' the proper managtzmtml of the miiiﬁu interest of the general public :ien.:s_ur'i§_1'g :;i$n.iix:1_s('r£1"$ ..:r13n"u£é1clure and lo emsure the gif wurkmcn. The Act was henna: in aisuurdancé'-..§i?iih and (b) uf Articic: 39 vi' the '~ of the 2085 Act stacking in intnxlucc a "mvncr uf land" and staztions 4.,5,9,iQ and I5 Pri!1¢iﬁ:1iT::Act have been aincnded by instzrting "owner crf 111::

Wand" the wards "lessor" and "Essen" wherever they appear . VA am hence included [0 be wvcrcd under the % ...p::uvisions of the Act.

18 It is further pointed out that Sacliun 9 of pruvidcs for payment uf Rs.446.59 97 Guvcrnment with the Commissioner 'Paym:nii.::. 1.112 "s.cl1JAi:"ul'}Vx'e:, Liaims uf all cunwmcd such of the Co:1IP'~!I!}' as trse:*:l!A'cAV:j':.3.*'_ i~&1§'= contended that the above amumzt 131' all assets vah.zaliu_;n_ Emu force of the 1986 A91, 2-.tS::' '§}_2'ﬁ" it ﬁnds mcniiun in the said Act iisclf St:cLiv%12;_ . The icarncd Advucaic General " ﬁgﬁlhezr poifii' that the language of Scciiun 4 and Section usaambiguuus and wide: in may application. vesting of the: Mills, including the ownership of "¥}1t%: lantis' in ﬁxvuur 0f the guvemmcni is in absaluie ierms. the 2&5 Ami seeking to amend ctvriain pmvisitms sf '"iht: Patent Act was wammitsd as a maitcr {if ﬁbrin, to more paxiicularly indicate the inicnliem and purpmi to inciude the acquisiiiun mi' thc iniercsi in land under the Parsni Aui which was 6 I9 zﬁrcady manifest. And the same: was also warnmlcd in the View expressed by this Court, in the carlicr pmtu;ée."ii1zgs.--V' The iacuna if any stands cured -~« the 9 with adequate and just wmpcnsakiun wixichis injgiﬁpﬁsii xvilfiwtlieg Commissioner of Paymcnis lhﬁi that the 1986 Act has spent aﬁd was invalid etc, art: not tenable. Rttliancez gaiagsctiv-431$ﬁi£%"RiiiV£é?x>Jing authuri!ies:-

a) vvs. A4'/3.-.Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, .41,21933 SC

5) mfnew Mézis L2: Vs; Ham oflnafia, .413 1935 SC 2030, 'viﬂggrziraclors and Joirzery (P) limited vs. Stafe of . ? SC 2310 V ~V cf) Zzﬁar Pradesfz vs. Agra Eleciric Supply Co. Ltd, AIR & k g Q ' gage SC 2422;

' ﬁﬁion aflndiu vs. Eipizinsiwze Spimziﬂg and Weaviregr Co.L£zL % (2001) <tSC'C 139 28 ﬂ Conmziszyioner oflrzcome Tax, Bfmpa! vs. K amzazhm, AIR 2003 SC' 2532 n A '

g) Balciziawar rm: and 0z;:er,g_ AIR 2003 SC' 2235, 3

31) Chamwn Sing)': and AIR 1970 SC 3;} Union of India and 0ih¢rﬁs--«(799%i) A THE .aBovc'z£zft«$ "i:}V'i§i.'f1phasizc and dcmonslzaie [hat lht:

sciﬁcgi ./ﬂew Aﬁax Court as regards icgislalion which ihtf: acquizsiligm cf pmpcrty by the State: in public iVvS' 3'.~a'!§*'i'.iV§_'It;AiV:!.:V;i.i"V.£.;llt:£-':§1"{)I!, 5:: order to give cifsci to Article 39(1)) ' _ of 1h és= Cc3s§$1i'ii;iiun of India and is hence: pruiecicd by Ariicic 31C H H " 113;; Cdiﬁﬁtuﬁun of India. That: auihuriiies cited abuvzt are: also lht: proposition that when: a siaiuiury amcmdmmi sacks T uiéxlzlarify the lagixlaiion so as to rcmusst: duubts - the saint: wzmid ' A have rcimsptas-iiws: t:fI'ec£. Ii is open to the icgisiaiurc is after law, 5 21 rctms 'tivc:t , which mav even result in altcriﬁg-.ﬂ:e:.A'haxis Thu'? an earticr judiciat pronouncement.

7. In the above: facts aiul:v"(:é.z_*cuzxi§:§ta;1cna::V~;A'ﬁdihcssiiig the itzgatity or the validity uf this 2505 Act, the sequence of events and uyis-&~«vis the rights ever tht: landed to note of.

This the petitioners who were:

the uvtincm Ur tam invuivwd, in writ petition 4227? interpreted the pruseiaéuns of the v. 'I985: hc:itt"ii:::£~«ti:c ownership rights at' the land wen: not flit: State Gevcmmcnt under the Act. The sat'i(3,__h1h"dcz on mum: had attained ﬁnality. Tim above @5213 {Bed in the wake of Karnataka State Inciustzia} and Devtﬂopment Curpemtiun waking it.) bring the irartds to sale by puhtis: auction as the. selling agent for the Buard of " Vlndustriati Finance and Retzunstmctiun which had opined in prmxcgdixzgg Lzgzgicr LE3; Sick Iﬂéiiiﬁiftiil Qrzzxpanirss (Spccial /3 22 Pmvisiuns) Am, 1985 Ihai the, Kanzataka cumpany was not an cc:onomica;ii}}"V "vi.a}:>lr;. ,uI_iit ahdﬂ Had 9 rccummcndcd its winding--up by its A6.'7.'~1 same was rtzceivcd by the Cutiipaily Cuiiﬂ .95".-:3 Iiigmbcred as' Company Pciitiun pmmptly ordered in be wuu::.dV--up It is urdcr of winding-up dalsd 5.11.1293 pasgggi Pgziiggn 14921993 is a brief order, proaucaa Anns;§;L§m§F-~«§Ie'P 147S3!20{)6, taking nuts of the rcpggt "re:g:tsiv;;vd» hegislrar, Bayard of Indusiﬁal Finance and the: statcxncnl of iht: Government uf they Stale: Govcrnmcnt lhai the: company ti} woundmup. The Oﬂicial Liquidator was directed to x V' V. 'alvi "furlht:r steps, Sums {:5 the pciitinncrs herein had ﬁled Company Applicaﬁen Nu.762:'2003 in the above Company getiiion contending mat ihﬁ land leased in favuur of the company wax Z 24 daicd 18.10.2004 {hail the Divixiunal Cummissiuneﬁs appéinlrncnt as liquidaiur in the: ﬁzrsl instancc: uuuld uni}! be taken as appoinimcni of an Assisiani or Deputy. £1' is £111: mspunsibility of the Ofﬁcial "

the winding-up pmcccdings, It: was ufiszgfiat-(1 ' Liquidatur had never been allowczgi fir comm! of the uumpany --~ lht: {he persons than in azhaxgc of the a ﬁh 931' '§v3':ci.hcr described as Managing §)iIt:C[l_}f:V:t!IViH ii1"1}§'V" mher capacity, hand-uvtzr the asset:-; of the comiiangr 143 Liquidaiur .

there was a dimctiun dakzvd 20.iG.2005 in of {has buildings and machinery on the land - it V -V the Oﬂicial Liquidator that the Saiﬂtt was loiaiiy V %%%k.;%?k.ug1um3 $1 R.3.l4-.42 fakhs. The appiicanis in CA 76212002 ' eigpréssad their wiiiingness its purchase 111:: same when (ht: iancis '4 ﬁrs to be handed (war le them. The Cumgtrmy Cuurl din-med the Oiﬁciai Liquidator in wctzivc the sum and deiivesr pusscssion of 6 x'ies<»€a Jr;-CL 'u'.u:i{2 Eiewx '?t"'i~c9ar1:"7[ 35 Pg, 4;

the lands to the applicants, as per order dalttd 674/2005.

It was llxerzsafter repuriud 76252003 had been put in 91' Vfjaucurdingly 113:: said application daiezd 11.11.2005.


The peﬁiéuizgrs     yet to take steps [(3
seek posscs$ig)n;§jf.1}iéir    :

 AAAA "       *aa¢s

The pci;eiu:;é;¢s%L%aaff»t?P :§f'£__Q_Q6)had flied a Civil Suit in OS.26{}.»'2{)uG2,_VVV:sa:<:lVV: iné=:gA'.ft5c<$.§?'cry of possession and {he same: has v as V 'EEK-~l'2-2003 and is pending in appeai preferred :[i';;~: ..:Gs;vcmmeni against the same. In the above: ¥:3.£1cI_'c£,'gVgruund; No.20z'20i35 having received the assuni :3? lb»: {If -India as on 24.6.2065, it is appamni that there is an :ib2:t*«I1¢::> uf cuhesion in the conduct uf {he Sialc: Gevtzznmctti. and obviuusly bclaiczd iegisiaiiun in respect of a company than was V ordered Eu be wuu;:d--up as on 5.11.1993. The said Amendment Act is oblivious £0 £314: said circzzmsianues. é 26 While an the mikes' hand, the State 1;-onccsded lht: pusstsssiun of the assets oi' {hr}. in' "ﬁat: Gfﬁciai Liquidator and has aIsu:=,__ hf posscssitm uf the lands of sc;fne.:__ of ;3§:iiiivi§r§{:r::v_VVas_}a}r¢a:i§%' referred in he-rvcinabuvc. "

There is no initialiyg' 3'-'ialc Government 10 dmnunvéiuiﬁie' by the Company Court from EinA1'<:_i(; or that the same arc in be va1it:_13~[g bxing. _i§1't:"sazi1u in cunsunanczs with the: Act. In the 'a§1y rcfercncc to the cffcci of the cvenis and __up}4;S. the dale uf coming into form: of ihc amendment V --V Acitk reirusptacﬁxzity of the Ad. is fictitious and fuiiis. Ii ix=quIci "nu£ have any eﬂéct an the cunsequcnazcs that fuiiow by ' of emicrs of campaign: Courts of law and by opt-mliun uf '4 law. A glaring circumstance that may be readily p-uxxnicci ms! is that the cfftzci uf winding-up order is that the company ceases to 5 28 A' legisfcrfzzre cannot legislate t:;=~a'ay with re-.*fE2.24i:§:"rzc7+.2A sirzsaiiorz that obtained 20 yea?s.».a1go .«.--:;r2;+;"'i:g;~é;;;+e""t%:¢+.V march ofevenrs and the Constitiatiomfczi f5'gi:?: i _ f the coarse of the 20 yezafs. iT};éi~~ wmzlﬁl inosgfi"

arbitrary. ttrsremsorzab Zea ¢:ndvi.;ii'k:eg¢zIior:--- c;j"§a.i5_i*rf;r}i;:V"

Thcrcﬁartz, it is lcgislaﬁon is a nullity. allowed. Tht:

Karnataka Milis (Acquisition and No.20 of 2005) is nail and void as .55"ifl£i?{}It$ii.':ii§1'1i'ii\&*iU1 the Constitution of India.

- _urdr.~:r ask:

sa /-

JUDGE av '-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court