/ IN TI HIGH COPNT 0? KPRNATAKA AT BANGALOR DATED T IS ‘E r MY P IUS 1098 WS?ORE T’ HON’BLE MR,JUSTI0 P1MPH t,,TT t A 1 (UR 1’tJT2 PITT UN o,121 9/10 6. BETWEEN :- Smt, Sowbhaya, a/o Sri Siddabavivaradhja, No.104, I.T.I, Layout, Vidhyapeeta Main Road, BANCALORE — 560 (85, ,Petitioner, ( Py “ri,B.K.Sampath Kmar, Adv,, $ Wf r JS Li . Karnataka Indutnal Areas Develotment Board, 110,14/3, 2nd Floe Nnpatesnga Road, BANGALORE — 56u 002, ,, ,Respordcnt, ( By ori,Ashok B,Zinnibir,Adv,,for Reert, This writ petition filed praying to ou’sh the Annex—S dated 6/$—4—1j36 and direct the respondent re— fra ning t on di p0 CC ,Lng the pet t n r f cm plot Iso,11(A f oddaballapur Industrial Are ,D dde a eon, C to,, i writ et t a ecmi ag on for p p e 5 g n B’ gnip tnie day, th Court made the fo1uwinp order S., 14 nC — ORDER industrial Plot No.11(A) in Kasaba industrial Area, Doddaballapur, was allotted to the petitioner for setting up an industrial unit as early on 22nd of August 1984. The delivery of possession of the riot was delayed b t eventualh handed er on I th of fly 198 , As per be terms °nd conditions eoiein at’ tat allot eat, th€ petitioner Was reqt ire to imm eat t e proect I the 7th of ar 1988. A lea°e cii— sale Agreement sa thereafter execited between the parties in December, 1988, and time for implementation of the oroject extended unto 3lst of March 1989, On the failure of the petitioner to submit the building plans for approval of the Boara, complete the Civil construo tion work and oommiss:on the unit, the Board issued a notice on 23 f May 1989 for resumption of the plot. his no as allenged t e etitionPi in w’ t petition 9 wh oP a a sed b a in Ic En a i m it oy i o a a t 2n a 89 wit wingdire in in ;ee of this, this petitIon is alloped, The oxuer dated 18/23—51389 bearing No,FEDB 2364/89—90 produced as AnnexureK is hereby quashed, The respondent is directed to give 44,_i \ 7/’ —3 water connection to the Plot No.11(k) of Doddaba’ lapur T ndustrial Area allo tted t p i t ozr within one month from the date of receipt of this order, and from the date of piving water oorneo— ti n, the respondent shall extend tune appropriate to the nature and extent of coostruction to enable the petitioner to complete the construction,” 2, The Responnts’ case is that in obedience to the aD ye direction, tme for completion of the pro ject as extended by four months and the petitioner directed to get in touth with the chief Development Officer, KIADB for obtaining the recuisite approval fo her bu Iding plans and for securing a aster connec tion. Bel:ancc is in this regard pTh-oed upon an order dated 3O7—i90 produced a Annex re—P4 t te o ec— tions, The petitioner did not however according to the Board take any action in the matter instead a re— cuest was rece ed from her on 7t of Januar, it - i ter!s of Annexure—R5 for extension of time for comole— tiono thec a b firter r d fthee onths The petitioner did not it start civil works r ommics on ne project eien after t expiry f the salu oeriod ann till as late as 23rd of March 1996, AAJ By a communication produced as Annexare—D, to the writ petit on, te Board pointed out tat the petitioner had not de pite uffiei nt opportunity eithe mede an attempts to take the requiexte water connection or start the construction work. This was followtd by another communication dated 6th of April, 1q06 AnnexureeB, to the writ petition by a t the toard in exercfØ of its powers determined the lease agreement executed between the partie3 and directed the petitioner tn tree gent ‘ierself on 26th of April 1996 to witness its re— gumption. Aggrieved, the pet ti cner ha- called in mace— tion t e said order in the present writ petition. 3. Kr Sannath lunar, le’irned Counsel for the pet!— tioner aade a two—fold submission. Piratly he conten ded flat tue p t..t re ha, already filed a cc tempt petition against the Respondents alleging non—compliance with the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 2nd of November, 198 • de irged t it em e the (utna asieda oticet he qron*ntmnatues I proceedings, it would be mere sprotriat if the orese t writ petition is directed to lie over till such time the ‘9d proe°eding were aken t their logical con— c us o • erring and isv s f pceent A iti n . . .5 R — a ‘f re toe disoosal f the qq 6 c nteint •t ton, a gued A 1 rae) man ‘1, 1 ii’! s’tou t t tendering the ssid prooeeCngs redundant and mt ituous. ‘eoondiy, he contendeä that the feil’arn on the part of the petie tiorer to complett The pro3eot and to commence produce t:on was entirely due to the failure of ftc Reeton— 4a to prova e the req site water o rnect±on, d ite toe r eti .6 taB (‘our a t order men— +flfl’h aarlt.. Bh ait+Ss1 t’iat +ha a+fljg a been aeting dii tentiy end ddreeeinp nemted it t°is’ to the Board, ooti€a wherc.D !ae has r’roj.uced es URe—C1 to 10, aekng the Boad Authorities to vrovide the weter connection but :U such recuisite had f’ien f et a the nn*nts. netit “. r a ti’s f qit at ert 1 e n°tritl 1 tee d±n r t 4 rtp ditona re reduoderthe terms of the agreement. 4. Yr ‘iinghice-’ 4 , on The other ‘ind ‘wn4 that me petitioner na!1 abscluteij no justficatin fr tier tel— ii to cave e renced c a ractin done Irto Oe t nwiti ta frse tdby t orere te a te t ha • He o tedt ti obe enc’e to t oa’t’t o aer the 5 ar ad cx ended “4.._ 7A 6 Z 0 0 tue tin I see £ r ‘t let’r the r eot 0 r tie rd i sued rq cite 4 ecti n.e I r grant I water oonre’ t a en jeot to tile t Voter r c it tN. petent Ant tyir tat tard. e bitedtttd agent pr’duoed ye nxtas I to C9 w v fejriietad 4 ‘iterte wb i did ot bea r mknow edgewat tie B a dert Board i r nr te sate ‘o rd it the 0 £ ‘I, reoord eaintaiie.d in th dinary o rae I the £fina’ busie ness. He euba’tte tint ttese do’umert tad been Cone ‘otedoilywxthav’ewtofivear3are a ethouuh the vent orer ad be r a’tino dii ‘ently ori)y ti avoid the ‘or esence I owng Ircw her racto . I av gv r wy nro e oandey’tz r t tN ant— 31 lOaS ide t eS lenin. aieto tat Ir r’-ti I etertat I,’ t— I V e ad t tt n.e. ‘, Ia lii e t ne 0° t t o Li’ t i t wittir t tedd net I e ye, a p r 3 rut t 01 t rt t ej e t rn°t * • e t teat rer tn t e e Itorot’r te ..• lv —7— a water connection or taking up the nro3eot in we right earnest The documents oroduced by the Res portents however sufficiently demonstrate toot tire for cnoietion of the project was extended in conse°ience of the directions issued by this Court by an order doted Oth of July, 10 0. A readirg 0’ the said ord r if dccc i mafe t ti t the Board tad i nig exteoded t e period f ow let n f t e Oct ir view t e d r ctioi K b this ‘ urt t Ino i t te tt titioner t a a to the f ncerned for fling a water connection, Not niv that the petiti ncr’s own communication dnted 7th of January 1992 produced as ANIBXU?2—R5, totslly belieS the petitioner’s versron that the faIlure on the oaxt of the petitioner to com plete toe proect was entirely on account of the nnn— avaiiaoility f water, A clos° reeding of tre ‘a d umnic°t n would show that the petitioner an the we r I wa . CAoti rar, reque e two ri wasf three month 3r ejtensr cimoi:ting — ject, as the time earlier granto5. b the Board nad airesdy expired It a’os not strictth speaking oh? irator;r for the Board to have responded t° the reouost male by p C the eta oner. i’it a .m ortart ±s that at ro stage after the ti of January 1992, did the petitoner either take any ste to tecu r a r i&site iter t.or of aistitate any c.onteaot proceedingq in t fl re— Z I fox the aflegel dcfiunn cf the directions 2seued by ttis ‘art p t e e tie wYt ‘efl ion. Tb peti— tior r n fact expacts this kurt to belie’. tt t her lettrs produced as AT!’stUPsS—Cl to 09 were sufficient o de’aorstra e e kerrte o’ ett r un je o • t Apr.. f ti the ft that Afl.L’z1 to 2e do ‘rt trr art; ncicnnfleCgemen 3f the apDr’dent—3oar1, I ‘e no xe a t d’ b°Ven a a+ ‘sent red 01 at y Ut zbstocae:t t. tae effect tt the off:,ial record of tte Board doe: not be’tr th said ccnusin1catone. I am n ie t a ptthe -. ti odetttt me runIcation relied uyon ny the tetitiner is effect to ‘oz’low 4 asti°y and extiniti ret n’act’oa rreae iiçv na; • 0 • Pu that even after t’ie latse of rgfjy eiaht years nn *orth— whi t steps a re t..ken for seosrina tte re uis 4 te r er or t • x ni , a ti tc te 4 tile zontert ;rcceed±ngs wLich me petitioner se launcied ‘iadcomeonl asta 4 ee tn end f 1 fl7. Iteejs 0 V a9e explanation muchlese an acceptable one for the continued silence of the petitioner over what she eights to be a palpable defiance of the Court order by the Respondents. The question is not whether the petitioner is entitled to claim any punitive steps against the Respondents even after eight years. The question is tether the peti tioner’s version that she was diligent and anxious to set up the project can be accepted. The very fact that the petitioner was armed with a Court direction which she could have effectively enforced against the Respon dent as also the fact that she failed to do so without any justification is in my opinion sufficient to belie her version that she was keen to implement the project. KrJumar however argued that the order extending time —for Implementation and instructing the petitioner to approach the concerned Officer for getting the water connection had never been served upon the petitioner. tLha is in my opinion an argument made in total dispair and needs notice only to be rejected. The Respondents have in specific terms relied upon the order issued by them in the objections filed on their behalf. The peti tioner has not chosen to file a re—joinder to refute the averments made in that regard. It does not therefore lie in the mouth of the petitioner to deny receipt of t e d a dcv, oat rt c mt t*o Is e 7t Januar, , i99 reoe ,ed from the petitio r by the B ard does not cive an imtressior as though the Boarl had not pnlena tea t e 4 ot a nC th urt, The lette does not so ue the reap ndents o havnp def ed the Court whethar aer4inp the prant of oxtenaon or ae water connection, Mr Sampath Linar, astl arred th t even if Boa decides to resume the possesion of the la, the Respoent -tall have to take reco rse to the procedure eats ished aw or recoverf f the posse sian of the plot. He submitted that the xesumption be only justIfied taking of proceedings under the Public Premises (un aithonsed a upant ) ii oti n Act, H H ngrfgeri, did not disnute this nosition aM submitted tnat the Board would recover possession onlr in accordance with the p ooedire eaab’ shed 1st, This stament from Fr noh er aould in my opin on a 10 ently lay he the apcrehension of Mr Sampatc Kumar that the Board is likel to fi row out trw netit loner surrarily, n the tots ity f the above :ircinstan Cs there fore I have na hesitation in holding that the netitioner had failed to impleoent the project with due dilieenoe 4 ii — within the exterded time granted to her for the purpose, without any lawful justification 8 The decision of the Board to res.um•e the land which remains unutilised for the past so many years, oamot therefore be found fault with, 8. Befon pa...rting I cannot help observing that I hare noticed a marked tendency among the allottees securing allotments from the Board for setting up Industrial Units delaying such units and contesting resumpticn on flimsy grounds, he resent is one such classIc case where the allotment thoqgh m&e as far back as in the year 1984 the unit has not seen the light of the day. Apart from the fact that the continuance of such allotments results in stagnation of the soar land resource necessary for aetting up industrial units, it deprives genuine enterpreneurs of an opportunity to set—up such units, The Board would therefore do well to keep a vigilant eye over such abuse of concessions. by those who are not interested in setting up units and who secure and intend to protect the allotment only with a view to make fortune at some future stage. —1 9, 1 the req it thiq writ petit faiie i e eby diqmi cc with e s asqe 1 ed t Rc’1, ,/_. I- JUDGE )• i4jan/