IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION No.9817/2019 (GM-KIADB) BETWEEN:
M/S CENTURION INFRASTRUCTURE, BY ITS PROPRIETOR A. ABDUL RAFEEKH, S/O LATE ABDUL RAHIM, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, AT NO.65, SPENCERS ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU 560005.
... PETITIONER AND:
(BY SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI H.M. PARASHIVA PRASAD, ADVOCATE) 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRY & COMMERCE, VIKAS SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA UDHYOGA MITRA, 3RD FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN (SOUTH WING) NO.49, RACE COURSE ROD, BENGALURU 560001.
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & EXECUTIVE MEMBER KIADB HEAD OFICE, KHANIJA BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROD, BENGALURU 560001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, HCGP FOR R1, SRI SRINIVASA GOWDA B.R., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM RESPONDENTS AND ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE R-1, 2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER, DATED 05.12.2018 VIDE ANENXURE-E, J AND H EXPEDITIOUSLY.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri K.N. Phanindra, learned Senior Counsel for Sri H.M. Parashiva Prasad for the petitioner.
Sri V. Shivareddy, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
Sri Srinivasa Gowda B.R., the learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has prayed for a writ of mandamus seeking a direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the application submitted by the petitioner dated 5.12.2018 contained in Annexures-E, J and H expeditiously.
4. When the matter was taken up today, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a land-loser and has submitted an application to the competent authority for allotment of an industrial plot on 5.12.2018. However, the aforesaid application has failed to evoke any response from the competent authority and the writ petition be dismissed with a direction to the competent authority to decide the application in accordance with law.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that suitable action shall be taken in accordance with law on the application submitted by the petitioner.
6. In view of the aforesaid submission and the facts of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the application submitted by the petitioner dated 5.12.2018 contained in Annexures-E, J and H, by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of order passed today.
7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE MD