IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.9955/2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
BANGALORE FLYING CLUB PRIVATE LIMITED NO. 172, 2ND MAIN, HEBBAL BENGALURU - 560 024 REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN MR. H.B.SHIVARAM.
(BY SRI NISHANTH A V, ADV.) ... PETITIONER AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT FLYING TRAINING SCHOOL, JAKKUR AERO DRUM BENGALURU - 560 064 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
2. DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH EMPOWERMENT & SPORTS STATE YOUTH CENTRE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H T NARENDRA PRASAD, AGA.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02.12.2016 VIDE ANNEX-H AND DIRECT THE R-1 TO CONFIRM THE ALLOTMENT MADE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER PURSUANT TO THE LETTER DTD.26.4.2016 VIDE ANNEX-E.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 02.12.2016 at Annexure-H to the petition. The petitioner in that light is seeking that respondent No.1 be directed to confirm the allotment made in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the letter dated 26.04.2016.
2. The petitioner, a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act with the intention of establishing a flying club in the Jakkur Aero Drome had made an application seeking allotment of land to construct Aircraft Hanger at Jakkur Flying School. The communication dated 20.08.2015 was taken note by respondent No.2 and thereafter a consideration was made in that regard. The petitioner in view of the requirement at that point in time had also drafted and executed a lease agreement dated 02.12.2016 and submitted the same along with a cheque for Rs.18,00,000/- seeking completion of the transaction by the respondents by signing the same. Since the same was not considered, the petitioner made a representation dated 02.12.2016 to respondent No.1. Since the said representation was not considered one way or the other in accordance with law, the petitioner is before this Court in this petition.
3. The respondents have filed their objection statement to the petition. In the objection statement, the gist as contended therein is that the petitioner cannot seek for execution of the lease agreement as a matter of right and in that regard, it is further contended that any proposal put forth by respondent No.2 and a consideration as made by respondent No.2 is to be approved by respondent No.1 keeping in view the policy framed by respondent No.1 if the transaction is to be completed. In that regard, it is contended that since respondent No.1 was contemplating a change in policy and also the necessary formalities for execution of fresh lease deeds and even in respect of the renewal/continuation of the existing lease deeds, the consideration thereto was to be made in terms of the policy to be formulated and the new scheme to be adopted. In that view, it is contended that the prayer of the petitioner would not arise at this juncture.
4. In the light of the above, when the matter relating to the grant of lease for a particular operation is to be taken note by the respondents, a direction to the respondents in the nature of mandamus amounting to specific performance would not arise in a writ petition of the present nature. Therefore, the second prayer as made in the writ petition would not be available at this point in time. However, keeping in view the fact that the Government has now through the order dated 18.09.2017 formulated its policy and in that light a consideration is required to be made by respondent No.1, they shall now take note of the representation dated 02.12.2016 submitted by the petitioner as at Annexure-H and call upon the petitioner to furnish any additional requirement or the drafts in the modified form for consideration in terms of the earlier correspondence exchanged and if the petitioner satisfies the requirement, respondent No.1 may thereafter take a decision on the representation in accordance with law.
5. To enable such consideration, the petitioner shall now submit a fresh representation enclosing all documents as per the requirement as contained in the order dated 18.09.2017 along with the earlier correspondence and a copy of the representation dated 02.12.2016. If such representation is submitted by the petitioner, the respondents shall take a decision on the same and convey the same to the petitioner in an expeditious manner.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE akc/bms