IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.51477-478 OF 2016 (GM-KIADB) BETWEEN:
SUNITHA MAHILA MANDALI (R) NO.21, BHAIRAVA NILAYA VIJAYANAGAR I STAGE MYSURU-570017 REP: BY ITS SECRETARY C. PANKAJAKSHI W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA.
(By Mr. RAJESWARA P.N. ADV.) AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.49, IV & V FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560001 … PETITIONER REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
2. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY ZONAL OFFICE THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD KRS ROAD, METAGALLY MYSURU-570016.
… RESPONDENTS (By Mr. K. KRISHNA, ADV., FOR R1 & R2) - - -
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 27-8-2016 (Annexure-A) passed by the R-2 herein. Direct the respondents not charge penalty for extension of time for implementation of the project and etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Rajeswara P.N., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.K.Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The petitions are admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions, the petitioner inter alia has prayed for the following reliefs:
a) Issue Writ of Certiorari, quashing the Order No.IADB/Mys/14880/2396/16-17 dated 27/8/16 (Annexure-A) passed by the 2nd Respondent herein.
b) Issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents not charge penalty for extension of time for implementation of the project and.
c) Pass such other Order/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this case, including the cost of this proceedings, in the interest of justice and equity.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the issue involved in these petitions is squarely covered by order dated 18.02.2019 in W.P.No.28051/2016.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions and for the reasons assigned by this Court in the order dated 18.02.2019 in W.P.No.28051/2016, the impugned order dated 27.08.2016 is hereby quashed and the petitions are disposed of on the same terms and with similar directions.
6. In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV