IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.28987 OF 2018 (GM-KIADB) BETWEEN:
M/s.First Face Information Technologies Private Limited, Office at No.50, 17th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru – 560 055. Represented by its Vice President Mr.V.Sudhama.
(By Sri.Dwaraka Nath.H.S, Advocate) AND:
1. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, Represented by its Director … Petitioner At No.14/3, Maharshi Arvind Bhavan, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Secretary-I, KIADB, 4th & 5th Floor, East Wing, Kanija Bhavan, Race Course Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.
3. The Chief Executive Officer & Executive Member, KIADB, Central Office, Kanija Bhavan, Race Course Road, Benglauru – 560 001.
… Respondents (By Sri.Ashok N. Nayak, Advocate for R1, R2 and C/R3) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the condition imposed by the 2nd Respondent dated 28.06.2018 and order bearing reference No.20598 issued by 3rd Respondent under Section 34B of KIADB Act dated 27.06.2018 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,00,000/- for extension granted under Annexure-AH & annexure- AJ and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Dwaraka Nath.H.S, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Ashok N. Nayak, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and for caveator/respondent No.3.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 27.06.2018 passed by respondent No.3 under Section 34B of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a singular contention that the impugned order is cryptic and suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. It is further submitted that the impugned order only contains conclusions and not the reasons.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents was unable to point out that any reasons have been assigned by respondent No.3 while passing the impugned order.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
6. It is well settled law that Supreme Court in the case of ‘S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India’, (1990) 4 SCC 594, has held that:
“The decisions of this Court referred to above scold indicate that with regard to the requirement to record reasons the approach of this Court is more in line with that of the American courts. An important consideration which has weighed with the court for holding that an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions must record the reasons for its decision, is that such a decision is subject to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution as well as the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution and that the reasons, if recorded, would enable this Court or the High Courts to effectively exercise the appellate or supervisory power. But this is not the sole consideration.”
7. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, the impugned order when perused, it is evident that the impugned order records the conclusion that respondent No.3 is not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner. The aforesaid conclusion is not preceded by any reasons. The impugned order therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.06.2018 at Annexure-AJ is hereby quashed.
8. Respondent No.3 is directed to decide the issue afresh by a speaking order in accordance with law, within a period of two months from today.
9. Needless to state that the amount which has been deposited by the petitioner in compliance of the interim order passed by this Court to the tune of Rs.2 crores, shall be subject to the decision taken by respondent No.3 afresh.
10. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved, he shall be at liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him under the law.
With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-