- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5461 WP No. 9383 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 9383 OF 2020 (GM-KSSIDC) BETWEEN: SRI. SYED HUSSAIN S/O LATE SYED AKBAR, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. ASH RECYCLERS, SHED NO.B-3, KSSIDC INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PILLAGUMPA, HOSKOTE, BENGALURU NORTH DISTRICT, BENGALURU-562 114. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. KRUTHIKA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V.NARASIMHAN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, BENGALURU DIVISION, BENGALURU-560 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MANJULA.N.TEJASWI., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5461 WP No. 9383 of 2020 THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Smt.Kruthika., counsel on behalf of Sri.K.V.Narasimhan., for the petitioner and Smt.Manjula N.Tejaswi., counsel for respondents 1 and 2 have appeared in person. 2. The letter of cancellation dated:21.12.2019 issued by the second respondent vide Annexure-H is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as setout in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the cancellation of allotment by the authority is perverse. She argued by saying that the petitioner has made the requisite deposit. However, the authority has overlooked this aspect of the matter and has erroneously cancelled the allotment. By way of reply, counsel Smt.Manjula N.Tejaswi., drew the attention of the Court to Annexure-R6 to contend that despite grant of several opportunities and undertaken given by the petitioner, he has failed to deposit the requisite amount as - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5461 WP No. 9383 of 2020 sought by the authority. Hence, she justified the action by the authority. 4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 5. The cancellation of the allotment is furnished along with the Writ petition and the same is marked as Annexure-H. It is dated:21.12.2019. A careful perusal of the same would reflects that the allotment was made and the petitioner was put in possession of the property in question. Despite the allotment, the petitioner did not commenced his business and also failed to pay the balance amount. It is significant to note that the Writ Petition was filed on 29.01.2020 and on 07.03.2020, the petitioner undertook that he would pay the balance amount of Rs.66,40,000/- within six months and the same is evident from Annexure-R6. It's almost five years, the petitioner has not adhere to his undertaking. Hence, he cannot find fault with the action of the authority. I find no grounds to quash Annexure-H. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5461 WP No. 9383 of 2020 6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 35