IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.1381 OF 2018 (GM - KIADB) BETWEEN:
JAIPRAKASH ENGINEERING & STEEL CO. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.510, 3RD A CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, 2ND MAIN, RAJ MAHAL VILAS – II, DOLLARS COLONY, BENGALURU – 560 094. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MR.KAMALAKSHA.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI.K.SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR MS. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, O/A NO.49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR EAST WING, KANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO & EM.
3. DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AND EXECUTING ENGINEERING, O/A. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ZONAL OFFICE, BIKAMPADY INDUSTRIAL AREA, MANGALURU – 575 011.
4. INDIAN COAST GUARD, HEAD QUARTER, NO.3, COAST GUARD DISTRICT, P.B.NO.19, PANAMBUR, NEW MANGALURU – 575 010. REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COMMISSIONER.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.UDAYA HOLLA, ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONG WITH SRI.S.S.MAHENDRA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI.BASAVARAJ V SABARAD, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS 2 & 3;
SMT. M.BIRDY AIYAPPA, CGC FOR RESPONDENT NO.4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.04.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.566 OF 2018.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in permitting the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board to go ahead with the allotment of the respondent-Indian Coast Guard Training Centre in Kenjar Village of Dakshina Kannada District, the writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal.
2. The only contention urged by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner is that various observations on facts have been made by the learned Single Judge while passing orders on the interlocutory application. The petitioner apprehends that these observations would affect his legal right at the stage of final hearing. Hence, the learned Senior counsel pleads the said observations have to be deleted.
3. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. On hearing learned counsels and on perusal of the impugned order, we find that whatever observations have made by the learned Single Judge are all relatable to the consideration of the interlocutory application. Even otherwise, findings or otherwise recorded will bind only insofar as the interim relief is concerned. Further, it is needless to state that the petition will be considered only on merits and not on the preliminary findings recorded.
With the above said observations, the appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE rs