- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23697 WP No. 18444 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 18444 OF 2025 (GM-KIADB) BETWEEN: M/S. GANGA ENVIRO TECH, OFFICE AT NO NO. 7676, 2ND FLOOR, G.G. COMPLEX, 4TH CROSS, SUBHAASHNAGAR, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123, REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR RANGANATHA G. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVASA C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23697 WP No. 18444 of 2025 DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, JILLADALITA BHAVANA, BEERASANDRA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 5. THE DISTRICT LEVEL SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE COMMITTEE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, NO. 203, 2ND FLOOR, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVENAHALLI TALUK, DODDABALLAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1, R4 AND R5; SRI. H.N. VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 TO ALLOT PLOT MEASURING 2 ACRE OF INDUSTRIAL LAND IN OBALAPURA 6TH PHASE, DABASPET/SOMPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, IN FURTHERANCE OF THE APPROVAL OF RESPONDENT NO. 5 VIDE PROJECT APPROVAL ORDER DATED 09.02.2024 BEARING NO. JI KAI KE/ BENG. GRAM/DLSWCC/06/2023-24 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23697 WP No. 18444 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondents 2 and 3 to allot a plot measuring 2 acres of industrial land in Obalapura 6th Phase, Dabaspet/Sompura Industrial area, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, in furtherance of approval of respondent No.5. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the District level Single Window Clearance Committee in terms of Annexure - D, has recommended for allotment of a plot. 3. It is further submitted that in terms of the communication at Annexure - D, the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.1,12,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twelve Lakhs only) as evidenced by the receipt at Annexures - F - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23697 WP No. 18444 of 2025 and F1. It is further submitted that however respondents 2 and 3 have not passed any order of allotment till date. 4. It is submitted that the payment of amount at Annexures - F and F1 were only pursuant to the legal assurance of allotment in terms of Annexure - D. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent - KIADB submits that the decision at Annexure - D has been taken at the end of the Government and they would have to now verify regarding manner of implementation of the assurance held out by the Government at Annexure - D in terms of the applicable policy. 6. It is noticed that there are number of matters filed raising similar contentions in identical factual matrix. 7. If it is the policy of the Government to encourage the industrial growth. The State has set up a mechanism in the nature of District level Single Window Clearance Committee even before the necessary proceedings are drawn up by the said Committee, there has to be co- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23697 WP No. 18444 of 2025 ordination with the KIADB to ensure that the assurance held out to the investors are implemented at the earliest. 8. In light of the same, respondents 2 and 3 to confabulate with respondent No.5 as well as the respondent No.1 - Secretary, Commerce and Industries and take a decision to sort out such requests as is made in the present case. 9. In the present case, necessary decision is to be taken by respondents 2 and 3 in consultation with respondent No.5. Accordingly, petition is disposed off. 10. It is also observed that it would be appropriate that the respondent No.1 - Secretary of Industries and Commerce may frame a policy in consultation with and involvement of the KIADB if such policy is not already in existence. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE DHA