Karnataka High Court
Phatu Rochiram Mulchandani vs Karnataka Industrial Areas ... on 22 June, 2011
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
7 ME RNARIAIARA TIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO _ ORIGINAL PROM m/s F RALEC 7TRONICS LIMITED IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNAT, AGED 75 YEARS | . 26. Ski. OLDER A PRO STER ONies LIMPED GING DIRECTOR L,, ons he PH ae we seu Peewee HEE MME WE RARINATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH - CONSTITUTION OF | y 'DIRECTIONS, ORDERS mS IMPUGNED 7 DIRECTOR 5 M/S RALECTRONICS UIMITED" aN LIQUIDATION). E REX "NTED BY OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, BANGALORE 56000 THESE w. bs FILED UNDER | INGING UP "THE "RECORD 4 TH at om, es 7 MINE ME MARINATARA FHGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO /S NAIDU,R/AT NITESH | BUCKINGHAM GATE, APARTMENT AD, BANC : PARISHAT Sectors ev TIS k S MANAGING DIRECTOR | =. STATE el ee yA HB ee NEEL EIST GURL OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH ( a) 1S. while Wi P.No.18185/186 " Sadermangala Industria! <>. "Bangalore City. BY ITS DIRECTOR. 5 M/S RALECTRONICS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR 11TH LFLOOR, | RESPONDENTS eo >, 'yovookre FOR Ri) THESE W.Ps FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA © PRAYING TO: DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1, RESPONDENT - .NO.2 AND iD DECISIONS, ER ETC. RESPONDENT NO.3 FOR BRINGING UP THE RECORD AN QUASHING PHE - a eNED " COMMUNICATIONS AND ALLOTMEN rt ---- COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ; . -- ON PRE NARY ISSUE In these writ ~ patitions, petitioners have sought 'similar reliefs "tn respect of the two separate items of Bs Wa p Ho. 18183 -184/2011 p ins to plot No. . gins to plot Nos. _ : 19 (A+8) 3. 5 acres. ies are situated at Area, Krishnarajapuram, Since the prayers made in these writ ns are similar in respect of bath th "TT Sees s er PRNENOREAAEMAA FIRGETT CUUKE OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO! - "Respondent:.No.4 dated "_Annexure-AN.. conveying approval of ~Induetrial Area, Whi 184/2011 is extracted as hereunder, (a) To issue directions, orders" or writs to pondent fv.2 cand oe Respondent no.1, Respondent No.3 for bringing up the recur and quashing the impugned Desi Communications and Allo nent t Letter, viz. Res ondane. No.2 2 dated 2009 as at Annexure-AM:, 2 in &0 fear as it relates to Respendent No. 4 in giving 'approval of project and" Fecommending/directing allotment oF _Indistriat land Plot No.18, Sadarmangala- Industrial Bangalore, in favour of Rspondent No.4, il) Communication of Respondent No.3 to Ss et Respondent. No.2 and recommendation/direction for allotment of i land Plot No.18, Sadarmangala of Respondent No.4. if the prayers made in W.P.No.18i83- BOR MY F ' IE eet a i Industria an + MINE ME RARNATARA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH "Company for establishing e strial land Plot No.18, Sadarmangala _ 7 - Industrial Area, Whit . ispondent No.4. favour of | - No.2 dated" oe a ain $0 far agit. iv) Decision of 13.1.2010 as at Annexu relates to R Venture Agreement" and inclusion of acd itional : " Hospitality, Matis and other allied espondent No.4 in @pproving " Joint facilities". v) Communization of. "Respondent 'No.3 to Respondent -- Na.4 dated 15.4. 2010 as at Annexure-AAH ° "cabverty. the decision. of Respondent No. : dat 1.13. 1. 2010. (b) Tots Sue B. direction, order or writ requiring Respondent No.1 to take back the possession of fang Plec No.18 , Paspondent no.1 allotted plot to above to pondent- as co! _ 7 "lane by the ras "no. in Company P ment was executed on , On 10.1.1989 additional sree of ~ 20,337.87 sq.mt (5 acres n plot No-18 in favour of the 5" respondent - Company, possession of - which was given on 23.1.1989- 3. When matter. stood thus, Company Petition No. 18/1994 was filed by one. of. the. escured creditors before this Court. against | the. * raspondent. On 6, thie Court ordered: the sald company to be esued a notice ssion of the terminated i.@, lease cum sale in espect of the plot No.19(A+B) and nt of nlot No. 18 was cancelled nation was communicated to the Official pondent no.1 on 19.1.2002 and ently, C.A.No.41/2002 w on No. 18/16 of the Company Court for namely, plot no.19(4+B) { MOENOMAINMAS FIRGEE OWUK I OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH 8 a "- and-raspondent no.1 is re a _prayers by the peti application was allowed by the Company Court. en 3.9.2009, which order was challenged by the 1°*: Petitioner = herein in OSA by order dated 11.2.2010, against ones incon a 14161/2010) has been filed by. the re pectin cin. Before the Hon'ble Supreme | an filed by the Pil petitioner hon and d by the Hon'ble Supreme 'Court on '19. 7. 2010, "16.8. 2010 and Court Ae - scheme has pursuant to that, three onders have been nas 11.2.2011. it 7 on the 'strength of the said orders particulary, | the erder r dated il. 2. 201 i thet the petitioners 4. When. the matters we d for preliminary heering, initiellynotice was ordered only on res 0.1 86 as to find out about the pres ° 5. The r with an applica king approval of its proj ondent no.3 end sul { © 8 RCO SMES T ME DARNAIARA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO ject recommending me industrial plots" namely, _ plot no.18 and plot no.19 (are) and _ Sheet respondent issued tentative approval of the. project. Ww batter . dated ar, 4% reepondent made an application for allotment of lard b | bate fere 2 the: 1" respondent 0 allotmerit lette spondant no.4 ins esued hy re *spondent ro. '1 to the very sama Plots. . és MANSEARES FUGTT COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH | Sa a petitioners could maintain these writ petitions in as. much as they were not pa respondent authorities to the 4% 'Fespondant. and: tae 1 behalf cof the petitioners that the order. pa bat by. "the Hon'ble @ Supreme Court larly, the order dated AL 2.2011 has conferred tandi we the petitioners to challenge the allotment of . the phits ¢ or lands in favour of the 4° Z plots were on of ang over possession or resumption of the " respondent by the 1° ras . chatcnga | before the Apex the 2" petitioner has filed a revi me and it is in the .
- context of the revival e s that the orders are passed by the Hon'ble Court and therefore, the aners thought it fit te challange the allotment of the 2 eer"
and cenfirmatory ts | 'by virtue of t "10.4 on ain In respect of plot no.19 (A+B) also 11 plote in favour of the 4" respondent in both set of writ challenge is ma de to the alintrrient. Ha therefore submitte that the petitioners are erititled to maintain these writ petitions.
9. Per 'tontre, counsel for spondent no.1 has brought to my. notice hist in SO far as plot No. 18 is concerned, after the issuanca of the initial allotment latte e isO issued on 7.5.2010 and lands have ee 'and seek Xe made to the. 'ord : -.. bafore the Apex "hen EN MAE MARINATARA THOT COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH ¢ petitions, since they are" "not, party. to the proceed between the 1° respondent end a respondent in each of the cases. He: ike submitted | 'that tha order of the Supreme e Court tio take epprepriate proceedings cannot be 1 tomes understcod an that petitioners are entitled to challenge te aot rie nt made. by the 1* respondent to the 4" respondent: {t is. for the | stitioners to apply their mind teps in the context of challenge by this Court in Cc. A. No. 41/2002 'and ¢ NO. 4/2010 which is pending he submits that the writ seed as being not maintainable ined counsel on beth sides intainability of the writ petitions and on perusal of the material on r "ord and having regard to the prayers bor ; " | terminating alle me, allowed by the Compa 13 made by the pstitioners in these r that the 1% respondent had initially allotted t plots of lands in favour of the SMe mspondent. on various 7 7 dates and thereafter issued in so fara 8B plot + ne. 18 is concerned. juently, on "Becount of the proce dings initiated before this Court in 2 Company 5 Petition No. 18/1884, an order of. winding up was passed on chalanged in any. pro ding. The 1* res the lands took SEN on 191.2002 and the said application was ) wae not the validity of the or the cancellation of allc the lands in question ther by the 1" raspondent.
ser romana a
- petitioners: herein to ' 'the: lands being res Teen ENN ME NARINAIARA FIUGET COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH ¢ the 14 lands in question. The letter of termination -- oy in any proceeding. It is in fact the. am petitioner. in: both ; set of writ petitions who challenged thie said order by filing
0.S.A.N0.4/2010 which was dismisesd by: this Court on 11.2.2010. This order ie- challenged. in. Specie Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. ' During the pendency of the 'Special Leave Petitions, the 2™ patitioner came forward for revival "ot the sf respondent: .
-ompany by filing ¢ 4 revival scheme. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It i le based on the Bling of the revival scheme that Apex Court enabling the orders have been passed by the dings with ragard ts the allotment of land in question in the context OF consideration of the revival scheme. il. At this stage, the other proceedings with | pondent no.1 fron pondent no.5 and allo to respondent no.4 in bot ons by the 1* respondent which have | challenged in these writ tions has to be No doubt, even be Official | Liquidator = :
oe me A a : communiestion was issued Son 28.16.2010 and FB. 2000, os - 9.6.2011 and 10.6.2011 | SEE MEMEINE MZEMARINATARA FIRGTE CUUKT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COL IS the 5" respondent, the application filed by respondent was considered: --
no.4 with regard to approval of the project and the project of respondent no.4 was. approved. on i _ 30.10.2009 recommending tentetive allotrrent of the tands | in au a :
in favour of the 4° reg was also ng, a | 3.9.2009 was after # the 1* respondent sion of the tite lande | in "question: + by taking pos me an 11.3.2616 and. subsequently on 15.2.2010 by respondent no.3 to reer, as stated by the learned tter was issued ndent, confirma counsel for ve te was issued on cum sele deed has im executed on tively in so fa
-- he. 18 and plot no.19 (A & B) are concemed. Therefore, in ight of the undisput the question as to whether th a _ that np ch "3. 9, 2009 by the 5" respondent-Company represent
- ; liquidation. °. 5.A.No. 4/2010 was filed by the 1* petiti
- herein 'and since the app a "41.2.2010, the 1° petit SEEN AINE TIES SGT OP RAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C
12. From the narration. ef undisputed 'facts, it becomes clear that the 5% sent he not stoned estion before the Con pany. Cot urt witch has been allowed by this Court by order dated 3. 9.2009. It is also necessary to note d m made to the order date 1 by nge. hes. ee lle ee ficial "4 Liquidator, since the 5" respondent is in the r loner has filed the Spaci Court. It is also not in dispute ken from the 5"
pondent on 11.1.2010. It is only TERRE INT MAE MARTE ARATHGE GAFUK ET OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COL 17 respondent, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passe: | three orders in the on filed by the ist petitioner herein with _-- status of the lands in uastion. On - regard to the present 19.7.2010, the followi n'ble Supreme Court ;
Scheme before this Court and, in tarnis of the said Scher, it is. also. prepared to make mente in insta hevonte, : ve patition shall stand over ite in. onder te enable the petitioner sed Scheme."
be suiami the propos Tereafar ron 16.8 2010, th "hie € Court would like to look into the as; . whether 4 rehabilitation package could be place. However, bef would like to know whether the land has been status of the land in questi MEMNENARTASINS TMAGTT GSU E WP RAKNAIARA MIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C a "Gabo « consideratic on the-rehabilitation packa "kro whether the lands had bee mo and filed ste ' - the notice of the 4 18 quently, on 11.2.2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Cour :
passed the following order, " The Special leave petition shalt s stand over far --_ | four months in order to enable the putitioner, fo so advised, lew appropriate: procesdings ; with regard to allotment of. the subject Ye lend by ° Respondent No.1 herein."
On 19.7.2010, it was submitted betore the Hon'ble Supreme Court thet the 1 petitioner "herein was prepared te submit a 'Revival Scheme and. therefore time was granted | to submit the pre scheme was submited te _Kon'ble Supreme Court by the yi petitioner' 'Nerain,. the. Hon'ble Supreme Court taking resumed by the i* status of the lends in : was issued to the 1° pex Court ment of objections on 9.12.2010 bringing to ~ baen rn IGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COU 19 appropriate proceedinge with regard to the allotme nt of the said land by the respondent no.1 herein.
13. A careful rea ding of the nforssald orders of the.
Apex Court is necessary in order to. consider" the reliefs | which have been sought by the: petitioners. int the S-wri petitions. The revival scheme - "propounded: by. the 2"
petitioner wee flied by the 1 petitioner herein. The 2"
petitioner herein. fe. not a party. 'a 'the Special Leave *atition. In the <0 abt of. the revival scheme, the Ape Court wanted te. kriow the atntus of. the land in question. It circumstances - notice was ordered to the is under: th OS gard to the fact that 1* 1% respondent herein. Having respondent hed stated that the lands in question had resumed on 11.1.2010 by order dated 11.2.20 Apax Cou re petitioners could mai considered in the first ir wer GE Ath AME CI WU UP PARI ALOIA MIGH C Nagi a ae ed has bean piace ad 'before. the / é : ah "the winding up order has be oes _. "maintainability of these writ petitions. In this co 20 joners herein could be considered only if the.
petitioners are "aggrieved pe writ petitions challenging the allotmne ns" so as to maintein these . ~ respondent in favour of 4"
respondent in. asch of the writ. getitions.
re. is ne challenge ¢ to the order of termination made i by the cr respondent in so far as the allot nt J the sth. respondent Company ig There i ie. aiso no chailenge to the winding up It is aleo- not in dispute that possession of the Inn s in 'question have been taken over by the 1% respondent on 1b. 1. 2010. The revival scheme Court nearly 14 yea osssscion of the lands have me Therefore, the of in the cent text, it ners have sought ct of the 4" respondent and Le FRETS RE AE, TA Vw Wr CORN ATOAKA HIGH COL 8 et B mr He Eg Constitution of India.
admin istrative autho 4, the defi 21 orders of allotme nt made to the land in questio quent orders thereto.
xtraordinary jurisdiction of this Court ked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India st. the first instance, a | on must».establish that he is a who can maintain the 'writ patition to person aggrieved challenge the various ordere: which, are 'administrative in sovemmental nature passed by. a statutory authority, oF authority. It is weil established. 7 "that except int @ case of a proceading, 'by. way. of a public interast litigation or ns who social action lit ation, wit of habeas corpus, per 'ticle 226 of the knock the doors of the High Court under Ar rtioreri must be by an or quasi judicial authority. Though , the Hon'ble FT EEG BE ME EE WE WP ROR AEAIA MIG C6 Sigal = that he has a legai 'ight to centinue in pos 22 private rights, e r ning is given so thet only &.
-A persor: whe. is. 'not aggrieved would have no 6 na te chaliange. the a action of an administrative authority. for the
17. In relation - to remedial stntue protection of privabs rights, e restr ing is given, eo that only a pe 'legal rights have been denied or invaded is. regarded as. 2 'pareor. aggrieved. When a petitioner challen ges Oh. OF rder of revseation or renewal of the mining lease, he cannot have any and! under ticle 226 of. the Constitution of India, unl he shows sion, has urt in the case of £ from the State cannot challenge an order n jumption thereof, however long his possession may e been, jal right to continue in ¢ denied or invaded _--
FT Ae ELE EO TEE I WP RAR LAI MGA COU eng oe ar Nm a according te. the A ws -standi in the context of private "more nérrowly than what is norma continue in posse Sinha Vs ~ M/s. S.Lal & Co (P) Ltd., In AIR 1973 3 SC 2720, the Apex Court has held that ¢ person would have . ~ fe focus sa stendi to challenge the order. which does not 'sffect his in favour interest. For example, the | grant 0 of. F-mining 'leas s inborest un : she is 8 party to the proceeding. A person whe nevar applied for a permit cannot 'be regarded as a person who was "aggrieved" bye an order arenting it to another person - Bhumaerg v. R tr A, FARR 1962 ANT 14 45}, also a party who ight of has lost his right by laches 'can never expect a! certiorar: ho be invol ced in his favour. Therefore, a person jing can only challenge an invotigned onter-as he would be an aggrieve pex Court. Hence, the doctrine of / rights has to be construed ly construed in the
- contaxt of public interest litigation. In this context, ce wae ale 7 wherein, the | Court has categorically held that in order to have a andi te invoke certiorari jurisdiction, the petitioner BAPMANE SEN EPRENES FEL R et A EW ON Pn GCUUKE OF KARNATAKA HIGH C 7 petttioner should be an aggriev | Court in its discretion can deny him the ext ~-remedy excgpt in very s should be 'aggrieved pe person * den generally expr eliefe Le. right of an individuai to bring an action | would not exist un he establishes that he is _ particularly affected than the other paople. There : a, the person who ig approaches the court under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India must be atle to show that ha would derive same benefit or advantage o over rand above that be derived by principle is the essen sofa ocus stendi doctrine. Therefors 3, in order to invoke certiorari jurisdiction, the rson and if he does net fulfili that chara ter then he is a stranger', and this ning and sometimes a wide diverse, variable factors such Fe a HI MWh HE IEE Gye th a a "\. Article 226 of the Const ion a that an applicant should ordinarily be 23 case, the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest. and the nature and extent of the prejudice oF ingury" = suffered by him. However some * general principles, have to ascertain as to whether an "applicant ig :
ble for this category so as to have necessary 'standin ny eligi isdiction _ Normally, ona. is 'required blish that one has: bean deried Or deprived of legally entitied tein order to maething to which one is. mesning is given to rson aggrisved, "A restrict , Pe person' "when it is for protection A more " broader approach is quired in 'the backarourd of statute which does not deal with prope rt ; ahts 'then "which deal with professional conduct oF rrorality.-
e Court has in fact laid down a ke the extraordinary jurisdiction under tution of India, the gist of which is one who hes e w of the sonal or individual right in the subject- e 226 of the Constitution of Indie applice powers' of confers on the High Courts 'extraordinary ATT LOOT CIM KEE tl PE WT AL, CHE we Wr ARN ALARA Miri (it ee a ey sustee to at. a the Bombe on favour of a "rival in the tre on. the ground that it is suffers 4 ponsibility, the frarne have contemplated applica judicial Tribunal supervising, actions and orders of the diffe executive authoritie SAT ~ VS-
HR AMMED AND OTHERS (AIR 1976 SC 578), tha question was whether the proprietor of the Cinen 2 Theater holding licence for exhibiting filrns . is net satitled to inveke the certiorari jurisdiction exdebito ".¢ "No ~object , 1954, te' granted under ay Cinema Rules by the District Magistrate ade brought up and quashed cisions, in order to English dex J inveke cer ner should be HET OE FTE ME Me OE TI GU WP RAKNALAILA MIGH COU a = 8 Mm
- "nature and: axbtent of the _ the nature end ex "sere general 'whether an applic 27 ner wil be enti and in @e iction, such a pet writ of certiorari as a matter of course, but 'if he does not fulfill that character, and isa 'etranger™, the Court will, in its discretion, deny -him -this. s extraordinary remedy, save in very | mstances. This takes "us to the further ion: ; who is an aggrieved. person"? and what are the qualifications requ isite far: such a status? 'pression " aggrieved person" -deno an elastic, and, © an axtent, art. 'olusive concept. It cannot be. confined. within tha bounds of a rigid, act and comprehensive, definition. At best, ite cribed 'if' a broad tentative ining depends on features can manner, Its scope 'and if diverse, variable factors 'such as the content and intent of 'the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the ner's interest and it of the prejudice or injury have sometimes ea by him. English Cou stines e wide construction however, and eo puts re as to heave the nc SAPRES EER TP ARES EERE Saath hd Bal UR EG GR Oe BLARSUAT ACA BG i] C a es 8 7 '21. Reference was al ochewe a "standing to sue" which meane / ° The plaintiff shall show that he is injure 226, rT 7 > appheant "should ordinarily be one wha has a person pai OF individual right in
2 of yp pice en, though in the & : corpus: or que warrento the rule & relaxed oF. mciified, dt other words, as @ general rule, infringe ment of some iagal: Fi ht or prejudice ta some legal interest tiioner is Inhering in the pe him @ focus stand! in the matter." » made to law on the point in g. States of America quoting Justice Frankfurter in Coleman "Ve- Miller (1939) 307 US 433 and held that to andi to ask Court independently of a statutory ren ted , thet is, subj wrong. Courts can intervene jal wrong requires a judicially enforceable right and the touchstone to Hor A OGG MH CVG TH EME CVE EE Ghote 8B Mine ene, aH 'the sforesaid ru _- rival in @ Cinema Trade apa standing to sue" for. "judicial review: of. :
administrative action. Again the adverse effect requisite for be ai illegal 'effect. While "standing to sue' gorising the peti the context of locus sta S4, the A Patt dA held that the eaid ral a6 wher 'legally exercised, private rights of an individual to carry on @ particular business en part were 'not af sd and therefore the expression 'aggrieved parson' rust be seen as strict construction and that the appellant therein had no legal right under a moe -stahutory provision or under e general law. It was held that did not confer any substentive right on rt fromm an option in common public gé an objection in he notice published under Rule <4. The Anex Court therefore held that the appellant therein had ne BRRSD EE Sor teal WAI EW ARIS A Io COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C HHO A EHH HH HG Hg, sane Sgr Sey
- vin the sense, that his interest, i the" matter ae in fact cautioned the High Courts exercising discretionary powers sb as to weed out large number of writ petitions at the. initia! stage itself se that the Court would not interf e vat the. instance of ae stranger. The Court laid down broad 'tests at para 3S which re ads an f silows:. | * Te: distinguish 'such applicants from 'werangers' among them, some broad. tests may be deduced from thé. conspectizs made above. These tests net shsolute and ultimate. Their efficacy varies cording. to the circumstances of the case, _ ineludi ing the statutory conte | io falls to be "considered. The apolicant is a perec infringed? Has he suff jal right has a legal wrong or injury, recognis ped by law, ced which has wrongfully thing? Has he a special and substantial A WATTLE WE AME TUT ww WP RARNALAKA HIGH COU 1 Sa ee a od
- i971 SC 246, A J "infringed. More 31 grievance of his own beyond some grievance or".
inconvenience suffered by him in common with tie ; rest of the public? Was he entitled to object and be heard by the authority before it took the impugned . - action? If so, was he prejudicially affec part of the authority? Is. the :
of which the scope of the person aggtieved" is. being. tonsidered, 8 social welfare ure designed te lay down ethical or pro! andarde of conduct for the community? OF 'ts it & statute draling with private ig hts of 'particular indivkjuais? m ; fonal st gar Rite & Flour Mills & Others =~ Also in the cage of the Na Ve - ere Gowda & Bios & Others reported in AIR i held that the rice mill owner has § amit to challenge the grant of pe ermission under 2 pe tution of India, setting up of 8 new CAL Soe oe cie 226 of the Co ope aud rite mill i by another, if in contravention of ecause no right iin such an applicant is @ to the acquisition that the 'aggrieved person' is the CRE Nee EO EET MIE Wr ARMA AICS KlGh Ct 32 perss in the land who can chall acquisition and not anybody else. 2 'aggrieved persons' in 80 fart as the challenge t to trent of the land in favour of the " respondent by ist respondent is concerned, 2 ince. they were fot parties nit petitioners are concerned, it is avai cred the tthe "patitioner no.1 wes a promotor, di rand shareholder ons respondent- Company now if in auld tion. Petitioner: noe. 4 can no longer claim h or or shareholder of respondent iced that the lease and the nt fmada in favour of respondent no.5 was tt of the land in question. There is also no de.
DR RE SRT RE HTN NORE ERINPAE NOES MOMENT ZF ARIATARA PUGET GUURT UF KAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COU 33 challenge to the order of winding up dated 15.11.1 though in the event of the revival scheme being accented, _ the order of winding up may have to be that aspect need not be take and 6 of lands in favour of 1 pondent ne. 4 in n bath the writ petitions and p petitioner NO. 1 is. not a t party to the eaid ndings.
25. As far a8 psttioner ne 9.2 | ig concerned, it is stated respondent no.5 -
that he wae. the. original 'ror noter... of ' director nor a shareholder at @ the Company Court or against the order of no.2 has no connection with 5% the revival scheme . bo accepta recellad. However -._ PO HOMER DHMH, --
HG A sot
- 'the lands in question to the 1° respondent. Similart venture ag EEE RIMINT MAP RARINATARA FGF GUUKE UF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C lexrance Commi
26. Therefore, these petitioners cannot challenge the edings of the 53° State Level singe "me r -- smmneniding Ge.
estion vin favour of fe fegpendent (Annexure-N), so also "the. "allotment 'letter: dated challenged" by the -- i allotrress | to the order pessed by the learned Compe judge in C.A.No.41/2002 dire ting the officiat liquidator to hand over possession of decision: of pea "respondent relating to approval of joint ment and inclusion of additional activities "such as hospital, majis and other allied facilities taken in gs of the SS" Stat Level Single Window held on 13.1.2010 cannot in any way ters herein. The communication of the said decision is prod 276 of the ¢ Constitution of India. They are 'str been subsequently allo IGP WWU RE UP KRARNRAIARARIGN GOUKT UF KAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COU 35 The dire tions sought by the petitioners to respondent no.1 to take the po ssion of the lands in question. frorm. ~ oner is successful it the: » Special ; the event, the 1° pet Leave Petition filed before the Apex court sinos the s orders ting the official liquidator to hand over possession to respondent no.1 is in chatienge before the Apex Court. Therefore, having regard . te. the eiiet "sought by the petitioners as $ ageinut the | respondent na. 4 its bots the writ it petition who are total strangers to the peticionars, the s petitioners have no locus etendi to chaliange any action taken by respondent no.1 in spondent no. 4, Therefore, the petitioners ons' within the scope of Article favour.of rf st be ¢ 'aggrieved per:
angers' to the respondent no.1 vis -a- vis res the 1" indent have to the 4" ndent.
However, that would not enable the patitioners to challenge the allotment made to the 4" respondent in bot!
- -patitioners have a right to challenge the allotme wey, . - favour of re TEE NERD NERS NEE RELERIESES ERE TUG RAI E GP RARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C 36 set of writ petitions, since there is no challenge mada to the termination of the lea ia agr : ant as 'well '8. .
to the cancellation of allotment by the st; napondent _ . Company with which the petitioners claim te. have, an interest. In this context, the order of the Apex Court 1h. 2. 2011 was particularly, the _ order: a they are well withiv: th order passed by the ae = appropriate proceedings against 4" res P| challeng' ng the allotment made to the 4" n espondent by filing the. ad writ. petitions: under Article 226 of the Constits: 'tion of India.
-- one "doubt, the x Court has stated rstood to mean that # the spondent no.4 in appropriate pre mean that the Court order cannot to challenge the allotment fe, "Court, saz "> "gould IGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COU 37 to respondent no.4 even if they ere not entitled to maintain the writ petitions. The Supreme Court order cannot be understood to confer a right on the petiionare te challenge the allotrnent made in favour of respondent - no.4 when the petitioners cannet. " considered as :
ereons' so as to maintain these wri 'aggrieved ¢ Therefore, the order of the 'Supreme Court. cennat be inte service pr contrary to the settled position of law, since the Apex Court's ender hes to: be .understood in : pertaining to the accordance with - "all the Principles maintainability. of writ a tition. under / Article Constitution of.) India. "Therefore, I am of the considered view that these writ. petitions are not maintainable.
29. "earned eck Sunee also stated that since inl Leave Petition is pending be ling the orders passed by the lea Judge as weli-as the order | Court, in view of the order dated 11/2/2011, findings be recorded with regard to the validity of the a ee?
aS wr 'Supreme Court and the nature of the pre orders granting pe "eM ANIA TARE TIGPTACUURE OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH ¢ 38 Supreme Court for its consideration. The said submisaion reason that it:does not. -
cannot be accepted for the simple exercising jurisdiction under Constitution of India at the th reohokd, has ts" determine whether the petitioners have a "right to seek the: reliefs and only then proceed to" give its fin adings on the issues raised. Therefore, the .
vest made ty 'the learned senior counsel to to record ndings. on the validity of the allotment made tb respondent No. 4 and transmit the ame to. the Apes Court cannot be accepted. matter which has
30. There iS another & ngs pending before the Hon'ble
- this Court. What is challenged before Supreme Court are rmission to the 1° respondent to take esion of the land in question, pursuant to the order of termination passed in the year 2002. If the petiti rders in that regard would have to be moulded only by oe ke into consideration the fact that this. Court while le _ "the Hon'ble Supreme : _ en n the ground of r IGM COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COU 39 the Supreme Court. On the other hand, if the petitioners are to succeed in these petitioners but would only cause rave, ve praia sondent. This would egal in resuit. 'in 'multiplicity of In my view, ception could he 'given to the d sek Kieave of the Supreme Court to implea petitions in the respondent ito. 4 in beth 'the: set of writ 5 Special : 'eave Petition fi fil i by the 1 petitioner herein and to bring all facts to. the: notice of the Supreme Court. loners. are at Therefere, the og Court to implead respondent no.4 in the Special Leave betition.
a1 In the result, these writ petitions are disrmi Sd/-
JUDGE