Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23622 (KAR)

TEKARCH TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/11004/2025 · 2025-04-08

M Nagaprasanna

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15054 WP No. 11004 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 11004 OF 2025 (GM-KIADB) BETWEEN: TEKARCH TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD., NO.92/2, 11TH CROSS EX-SERVICEMEN ST. VENKATAPPA LAYOUT, MS NAGAR POST, KAMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 500 033 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, SRI DHANANJAYA L., AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 4TH FLOOR, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15054 WP No. 11004 of 2025 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA UDYOG MITRA, NO. 49, 3RD FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN (EAST WING), RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R-1; SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO CONSIDER THE WRITTEN REPRESENTATION DATED 20.12.2024 AT ANNEXURE-C, REPRESENTATION DATED 15.01.2025 AT ANNEXURE-D AND REPRESENTATION DATED 05.04.2025 AT ANNEXURE-E SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING ALLOTMENT OF 2 ACRE LAND AS APPROVED BY THE DLSWCC, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: “a] Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to consider the written representation dated 20.12.2021 at Annexure-C, representation dated 15.01.2025 at Annexure-D and representation dated 05.04.2025 at Annexure-E submitted by the Petitioner seeking allotment of 2 acre land as approved by the DLSWCC, under the facts and circumstances of the case; - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15054 WP No. 11004 of 2025 b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to allot 2 acre land in Hi-Tech, Defence & Aerospace Park at Devanahalli Industrial Area (PHASE - I) in conformity with the clearance given by the DLSWCC, under the facts and circumstances of the case; and c) Issue any appropriate writ, order or orders or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit to grant, under the facts and circumstances of this case.” 2. Heard Sri Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Mohammed Jaffar Shah, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri B.B.Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3. The petitioner files an application before the 3rd respondent – Karnataka Udyog Mitra for allotment of a plot to set up an industry. It transpires that on 04.11.2019, the District Level Single Window Clearance Committee (for short ‘DLSWCC’) after considering the application of the petitioner grants approval for allotment of 2 acres of land in Hi-Tech Park, Defence and Aerospace Park, Devanahalli Industrial Area (Phase-1). After the said allotment, the Board has not allotted any plot to the petitioner and the representations of the petitioner galore for such allotment. The representations - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15054 WP No. 11004 of 2025 having not considered by the respondents, has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. Sri B.B.Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that if reasonable time is granted, the representations of the petitioner would be considered in terms of approval of the DLSWCC and appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with law. 5. In that light, I deem it appropriate to dispose the petition, directing respondent No.2 - Board to consider the representations at Annexures ‘C’ ‘D’ and ‘E’ and pass necessary orders in accordance with law, within an outer limit of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not earlier. 6. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13