Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
W.P.NO.100145/2021(GM-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
M/s M.R.Auto Building Works, By proprietor Mohammad Rizwan H.Alwadkar, Age : 46 years, Occupation : Business, R/o Plot No.25-26, Income Tax Colony, Mahantesh Nagar, Belgavi-590016. … PETITIONER (By Sri S.H.Mittalkod, Adv.)
AND:
State of Karnataka, Represented by its Addl. Chief Secy. to Government, Commerce and Industry Department, Vikas Soudha, Bengaluru-01.
CEO & EM KIAD No.49, Khanija Bhavan, 4th & 5th Floor, Race Course Road, Bengaluru-560 001.
Secretary-1, No.49, Khanija Bhavan, 4th & 5th Floor, Race Course Road, Bengaluru-560 001.
: 2 : 4. Development Officer KIADB, Belgavi-590016.
Executive Engineer, KIADB Belgavi-590 016. … RESPONDENTS (By Sri Vinayak S.Kulkarni, AGA for R1) (by Sri P.N.Hatti, Adv. for R.2 to R5.)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash the order bearing No.Ka.Kai.Pra.Mum/Ka/Hanchike V-43 – 2020-21 dated 19.11.2020 passed by respondent No.2 produced at Annexure-E in the interest of justice and equity and etc.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
: ORDER :
In this writ petition an order dated 19.11.2020 is challenged, by which, the allotment of a plot in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that, he has not adhered the terms of allotment. 2. The allegations made against the petitioner was that the unit was not set up within a period of two years from the date of allotment. 3. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that he had applied for
: 3 : permission to construct the factory building on 06.01.2014 and the authority had also granted permission on 13.01.2015. He has submitted that, he has since constructed the structure and also installed some of the machineries and he has also procured proof for having secured electricity connection from HESCOM. 4. The petitioner has also stated that, he would undertake to comply with the terms of the lease cum sale agreement within a period of six months and this statement would be subject to providing of all facilities and amenities by the respondents. 5. In my view, since the petitioner has put up a structure and also obtained electricity supply and undertaken to comply with the terms of lease cum sale agreement within the six months, the order of cancellation cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly quashed. 6. The affidavit of undertaking of the petitioner that he shall comply with the terms of lease cum sale
: 4 : agreement within a period of six months from today is taken on record. 7. If the respondent authorities are not satisfied that, the petitioner was abiding by the said undertaking they would at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings for cancellation of allotment. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE EM