- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11561 WP No. 12426 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 12426 OF 2017 (GM-KIADB) BETWEEN: M/S PULLA REDDY SWEET STALL A UNIT OF M/S PADMAVATHI ENTERPRISES HAVING ITS BUSINESS AT CORPORATION NO 522, SITE NO 95, IPIP INDUSTRIAL AREA, 2ND BLOCK, WHITE FIELD BANGALORE – 560 066. REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR T. PRASADA RAO. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 560 001. 2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD # 49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. ASHOK N NAYAK FOR R2) THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DATED 08.02.2017 Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11561 WP No. 12426 of 2017 BEARING NO .KA.KAI.PRA.A.MAM/A.A&KAA.A-2/2650/ 2016-17 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. “issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order and quash the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 08.02.2017 bearing No. KA. KAI. PRA. A. MAM/ A.A & KAA. A-2/2650/2016-17 vide Annexure-A; b. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of this case in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that without following any procedure under Section 34 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act (for short, ‘KIADB’), 1966, the 2nd respondent has issued an impugned order dated 08.02.2017, at Annexure-A directing the petitioner to vacate the premises within seven days from the date - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11561 WP No. 12426 of 2017 of receipt of notice for violation of the condition of the allotment. 3. Whenever there is a violation of the allotment and lease granted by the KIADB, necessary action should be taken under Section 34 of KIADB Act by following a procedure prescribed thereunder. 4. The submission of Mr.Ashok N Nayak, learned counsel for the KIADB is that the petitioner is not an allottee but a tenant under the allottee. In that background, action has not taken under Section 34 of the Act and impugned notice, under annexure-A is issued. He further submits that the action has been already taken under Section 34 of the Act against the allottee, a challenge has been made by way of writ petition. The writ petition has also been withdrawn and as such, apart from the petitioner, there is no other persons objecting to the action taken by the KIADB. 5. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that even if the petitioner were not to be an allottee, the petitioner - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11561 WP No. 12426 of 2017 claiming a right under allottee, would also be available to be proceeded under Section 34 of the KIADB Act and as such, the KIADB would be entitled to and empowered to exercise the right under Section 34 of the Act. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed in part. ii. A certiorari is issued, the order dated 08.02.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-A is quashed reserving liberty to respondent No.2 to initiate proceeding against the petitioner under Section 34 of the KIADB, Act. Until orders are passed, the possession of the petitioner cannot be interfered with. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE JS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0