Karnataka High Court
Sri.Mahadev C. Mattikalli vs The Government Of Karnataka on 21 June, 2018
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V. Nagarathna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
WRIT PETITION NO.103522/2018 (GM-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MAHADEV C.MATTIKALLI,
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: PROPRIETOR OF
M/S. S.G.M.FEEDS,
R/O: HOUSE NO.125,
VEER SAVARKAR CHOWK,
NEAR LAST BUS STOP,
SHAHU NAGAR,
BELAGAVI. ...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.PALLAVI S.PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SRINAND A.PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ADDL.CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES,
ROOM NO.106, 1ST FLOOR,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
REP. BY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
AND EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
ZONAL OFFICE, PLOT NO.7/B,
B.K. KANGRALI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
BELAGAVI-580010.
2
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN
DISTRICT LEVEL SINGLE WINDOW
CLEARANCE COMMITTEE,
D.C. COMPOUND,
BELAGAVI-590001.
4. JOINT DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND
COMMERCE AND MEMBER SECRETARY,
DISTRICT LEVEL WINDOW CLEARANCE COMMITTEE,
DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE,
UDYAMBAG, BELAGAVI-580008.
5. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
REPT. BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
EXECUTIVE MEMBER,
NO.49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR,
"EAST WING", KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVI V.HOSAMANI, AGA FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.IADB/BGM/3188/2017-2018
DATED 19.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT MARKED
AT ANNEXURE-"H". A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE ONLINE APPLICATION
DATED 08.08.2017 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-"C".
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner has assailed endorsement dated 19.03.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent-Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (Annexure-H). By that endorsement, 2nd respondent-Board has intimated to the 3 petitioner the status of applications filed for allotment of land in Honaga Industrial Area, Belagavi.
2. On perusal of Annexure-H dated 19.03.2018, it is noted that online application for allotment of 0.05 acre of land in Honaga Industrial Area, Belagavi was requested; that the applications received were placed before the Screening Committee on 07.11.2017 and in the said meeting, it was observed that multiple applications were received from plots. Thereafter, the subject was placed before the District Level Single Window Agency meeting held on 27.12.2017, in which a decision was taken to conduct auction for disposal of the available plots. That permission would be obtained from the Head Office for fixing the date of auction and the same could be intimated to the petitioner for participation in the auction for bidding. The said communication is assailed in this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the 5th respondent-Board introduced online service vide Notification dated 02.08.2016. As per the said Notification, 4 online applications for allotment of land, approval of building plan or water supply connection etc., are provided. The eligibility for applying online for allotment of land is that the applicant's project should be approved by one of the Committees namely District Level Committees. The applications are web hosted on the website of the 5th respondent-Board and applications sent directly would not be entertained. In terms of the above system put in force by the 5th respondent-Board, petitioner applied for an industrial plot online on 01.07.2017. The said application was acknowledged by the Court. Petitioner was required to submit all the documents and he accordingly submitted the documents. The requisite deposit has also been made by the petitioner. His project report and also report regarding land loss etc., have been submitted. The grievance of the petitioner is that the allotment letter has not been issued by the respondents. Therefore, petitioner approached the respondents on several occasions for issuance of an allotment letter. Petitioner submitted a detailed report on 24.02.2018 to the 2nd respondent requesting to consider 5 the application for allotment of plot. In response to the said representation-Annexure-H, communication has been issued. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has assailed it in this writ petition. Additional prayer has also been sought for by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus to the 2nd respondent to consider online application dated 08.08.2017 as per Annexure-C.
4. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner. She submits that when the application was filed by the petitioner with the requisite documents and deposit made are in order, the respondent-Board ought to have allotted a plot in the industrial area to the petitioner, that the same has not been done till date. There is no reason as to why the plots have to be auctioned, when there is no such provision made. She further submits that when the petitioner's online application have been acknowledged, the allotment would have to be made in accordance with the existing system and not by having an auction of the plots. She submits that in the event the respondent-Board 6 is to have an auction of the plots, it would cause monetary prejudice to the petitioner as he may not be in a position to bid at the highest rate and consequently would lose out on the allotment of a plot. She therefore submits that this Court may intervene in the matter.
5. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and on perusal of the material on record, particularly Annexure-H-Communication dated 19.03.2018, it is noted that the respondent-Board has decided to auction the plots to the eligible applicants since there are multiple applications received for the plots. The object and purpose of such a decision is to allot the plots on an objective basis to the highest bidder and not in any manner. The said decision of the respondent-Board cannot be held to be arbitrary or against the principles of distribution of largesse by an administrative authority such as the respondent- Board or by the State Government for the reason that distribution of such largesse such as industrial plots in the instant case would have to be on an objective basis after 7 considering the case of all the persons eligible for allotment of sites, it cannot be on a subjective basis or on any other basis as it would lead to arbitrary action as a result of nepotism or favoritism in the allotment of such plots. In fact the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation V/s Union of India, reported in [(2012) 3 SCC 1] has observed that a duly publicised auction conducted fairly and impartially is perhaps the best method for distributing natural resources or public property. While transferring or alienating the natural resources, including land as in the instant case, the State is bound to adopt method of auction by giving wide publicity, so that all eligible persons can participate in the process. By this, the State would adopt a transparent and fair method for making selections so that all eligible persons get a fair opportunity of competition.
6. That apart when the respondent-Board has taken a decision to have a particular mode of disposal of the sites by allotting it on the basis of auction, unless the 8 same is held to be arbitrary or in any way affects the Board's functioning, the same cannot be a subject matter of adjudication in as much as the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit in judgment over the mode or manner in which plots are to be disposed of or allotted when there are multiple applications received from multiple persons or entities. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is hence dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE CLK