IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.28051/2016 (GM KIADB) BETWEEN M/S RENAISSANCE DESIGN BUILD PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.50, RENAISSANCE LANDMARK 17TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 055, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI.N.S.RAMANJ ... PETITIONER (BY SRI DWARAKANATH H S, ADV.) AND 1. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, AT NO.14/3, MAHARSHI ARVIND BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, K.I.A.D.B. ZONAL OFFICE, METAGALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA, K.R.S.ROAD (NEAR VIKARANTH TYRES), MYSURU-570 016 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BASAVARAJ V SABARAD, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY R-2 DATED 27.04.2016 VIDE ANNEX- A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR “ORDERS”, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Sri Dwarakanath H.S., Advocate for the petitioner.
Sri Basavaraj V. Sabarad, Advocate for Respondent nos.1 and 2.
2. Petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final hearing.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of order dated 22.04.2016.
4. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition stating are that the petitioner was allotted 25 acres of land in plot No.47 of Mysore Industrial Area, 3rd Phase, Koorgalli Village to establish S.E.Z. for IT/ITES vide communication dated 19.05.2007. After the allotment, the petitioner made payments of the amount the details of which has been given in paragraph 5 of the writ petition. Thereafter, lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 20.03.2010 which was registered. The Assistant Secretary of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board by the impugned order dated 27.04.2016, has cancelled the lease deed executed in faovur of the petitioner by order dated 27.04.2016 on the ground that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the lease agreement dated 12.09.2008. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the court to Section 34-B (1) of The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and has submitted that the power to cancel the lease deed and to resumption of possession of the premises lies with the Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner also invited the attention of the court to Section 14 (g) of the Act and submitted that under the law the power of the Board can only be delegated to executive member of the Board. However, in this case, the impugned order has been passed by the Assistant Secretary who is not an executive member. In other words, there has been no delegation of power and the impugned order is per-se without
Assistant Secretary on the ground that he was authorized by that the powers were delegated to the Development Officer to pass the impugned order.
6. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is further taken note of Section 34-B (1) of the Act as well as Section 14 (g) of the Act, which reads as under:-
“[34B. Resumption of the possession of premises including the residential tenements on breach of terms and conditions of lease or holding without authority: (1) Where the Board is of the opinion that an allottee of any premises or part thereof or residential tenement in an industrial area or industrial estate has violated any of the terms or conditions of allotment or holds it without any authority it may, without prejudice to section 25 give notice to such allottee and Banks or Financial Institutions, in whose favour the Board has permitted the mortgage or leasehold rights of the premises, or residential tenement specifying the breaches of the terms and conditions of the allotment calling upon the allottee to remedy such breaches within a time stipulated in the notice.”
“14(g) to delegate any of its powers generally or specially to the Executive Member;”
7. From the perusal of the above, it is evident that in case lessee commits breach of terms and conditions of lease, the Board has authority to take action against such a lessee. In view of section 14 (g), the Board has the power to delegate any of its power generally or specially to the executive member. Thus, the power under Section 34 B (1) would be dealt with either exercise by the Board or by the executive member to whom such powers are delegated. In the instant case, from the perusal of the impugned order, that the aforesaid order has been passed by the Assistant Secretary who is not an executive member of the Board. Thus, the order has been passed by an incompetent authority which is per-se without jurisdiction and therefore, no sanctity in law can be attached to the same. The impugned order therefore quashed and set-aside. However, needless to state that it will be open to the petitioner to raise all such contentions as may be available to him under the law in case the need arises.
The petition is disposed of.
In view of disposal of the petition, all the Interlocutory Applications do not survive for consideration.
Sd/- JUDGE Chs* CT-HR