- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14787 WP No. 85389 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO.85389 OF 2013 (GM-KSSIDC) BETWEEN: M/S ANNAPURNA FOOD INTERNATIONAL, PLOT NO.R 37, INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT, MANAKI VILLAGE, KUMTA, BY ITS PARTNER, SMT. DHANASHREE VINAYAK SHANBAG @ BALERI AGE : NO.684/685, BALERI HOUSE, NEAR CANARA BANK, CAR STREET, KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581354. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICER BUILDING, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560044. R/BY MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF MANAGER (IES) KSSIDC LIMITED, HUBLI-580030, DIST: DHARWAD. 3. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (IES) KSSIDC LIMITED, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHARMILA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3) VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14787 WP No. 85389 of 2013 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION NO.AGM.NTFN/SHEDS/ FLATS/PLOTS/2013-14/10339 DATED 12.11.2013, ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE A IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO PLOT NO.R 37 FORMED IN INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT FORMED IN SY NO.70/A/2 OF MANAKI VILLAGE, KUMTA TALUK, DISTRICT: UTTARA KANNADA, AS SHOWN IN THE STATEMENT PREPARED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE B & ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning Annexure-A, Notification dated 12.11.2013 issued by the respondents notifying allotment of different types of industrial sheds in various places of the State including R-Type shed at Kumta measuring 378 sq. mtrs. 2. Heard Sri. J.S.Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Sharmila M.Patil, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was allotted an industrial shed at Kumta by - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14787 WP No. 85389 of 2013 Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Corporation’) and, in pursuance to the allotment, the respondents executed a lease- cum-sale agreement on 13.04.2000. It is also stated that on 18.09.1999 itself, the industrial plot was put in possession of the petitioner-firm. On 06.12.2000, the Executive Engineer of respondents-Corporation approved the sketch to construct industrial shed. Further, it is stated that on 24.02.2011, the petitioner-firm made an application to the Kumta Town Municipal Council seeking permission for construction of industrial shed/building and that the same was granted. Thereafter, the petitioner is said to have made an application to the respondents-Corporation seeking permission to get water and electric connection for manufacturing activity. At that stage, the respondents issued Notification dated 12.11.2013 (Annexure-A), notifying petitioner’s industrial shed for re-allotment. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that no notice was issued for cancellation of the allotment and without there being any proceedings, the respondents could not have cancelled the allotment. Moreover, learned counsel would submit that the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14787 WP No. 85389 of 2013 petitioner has already constructed a building which the respondents failed to take note of. 4. Per contra, Smt. Sharmila M.Patil, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the lease-cum-sale agreement and as such, the petitioner was issued with several notices calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the terms and conditions are not complied with, and why the building was not constructed within the time stipulated and, as the petitioner failed to reply, the respondents, by order dated 03.11.2009 cancelled the allotment made to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that, subsequently on 01.10.2014, the industrial site was allotted to one Smt. Kalpana Ishwar Gawadi and a lease-cum-sale agreement was also executed in her favour on 07.10.2014. Thus, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner having not challenged the order of cancellation cannot seek the quashing of the notification issued for allotment of the shed pursuant to cancellation of allotment of industrial site to the petitioner. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14787 WP No. 85389 of 2013 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers including the statement of objections filed by the respondents-Corporation, I am of the considered view that it is not a case for interference with the notification (Annexure-A) issued for allotment of industrial shed. 6. It is true that the industrial shed in question was allotted in favour of the petitioner on 18.09.1999 and, in pursuance of the said allotment, a lease-cum-sale agreement was also executed in favour of the petitioner on 13.04.2000. Clause 4 of the said lease-cum-sale agreement required the lessee i.e. the petitioner to construct industrial shed as per plan, designs, and specifications approved by the respondents- Corporation within one year from the date of taking possession i.e., 02.12.1999. It appears that the petitioner failed to construct the industrial shed within one year. A show cause notice dated 10.06.2002 is said to have been issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, vide cancellation order dated 19.08.2004 (Annexure- R2), allotment was cancelled. Subsequent thereto, in terms of Annexure-A, the industrial shed is brought to re-auction. One - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14787 WP No. 85389 of 2013 Smt. Kalpana Ishwar Gawadi is allotted said industrial shed by allotment letter dated 01.10.2014 (Annexure-R7) and a lease- cum-sale agreement in respect of the said re-allottee was executed on 07.10.2014 which is evident from Annexure-R9. 7. Though the statement of objections is filed on 07.08.2024, the petitioner has not taken steps till day to challenge the order of cancellation or re-allotment made in favour of Smt. Kalpana Ishwar Gawadi or to implead her as party to the proceedings. In the absence of any challenge to the cancellation of allotment and re-allotment in favour of a third party, and in the absence of the said third party before the Court, the prayer of the petitioner challenging the Notification dated 12.11.2013 bringing the industrial shed for re-allotment cannot be granted. It is seen that the petitioner has filed rejoinder statement dated 21.08.2024 to the statement of objections of the respondents-Corporation. However, in the rejoinder statement of the petitioner, there is no prayer in respect of cancellation or re-allotment. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14787 WP No. 85389 of 2013 8. In the above circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present petition. It is open for the petitioner to challenge the cancellation order and re-allotment order in accordance with law, if law permits. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE KMS, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 1