RAJKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri.D.P.Ambekar., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Veeranagouda Malipatil., learned HCGP for respondents 1 & 4, Sri.Siddaling Reddy Patil., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Chaitanyakumar Chandriki., for respondent No.2, Smt.Ratna N.Shivayogimath., learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Sri.Sachin M.Mahajan., learned counsel for respondent No.6 have appeared in person. Emergent notice to respondent No.3 was ordered on 19/1/2015. A perusal of the office note depicts that respondent No.3 has neither engaged any advocate nor conducted the case as party in person. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass orders on the merits of the case.

(2.) The brief facts are these: It is stated that the petitioner is running a micro/ manufacturing unit at Vijayapura, wherein he is manufacturing tractor trailers and agricultural equipments. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-President, District Level Single Window Committee, Vijayapura on 23/8/2014 called for applications for allotment of industrial plots including two plots viz., plot No.11 and plot No.16 at Industrial Area, Bijapur. The petitioner along with others applied for being granted Plot No.16. The respondents 5 and 6 both applied for grant of Plot No.11. The Screening Committee scrutinized the said Forms received for Plot Nos.11 and 16 and awarded 45 marks to the petitioner, which was the highest amongst the applicants for Plot No.16 and further recommended the name of the petitioner for being allotted Plot No.16. Similarly, amongst the applicants for Plot No.11, the name of respondent No.5 was recommended for allotment of Plot No.11 as he had secured 52 marks as against 40 marks obtained by respondent No.6. As things stood thus, the third and fourth respondents did not accept the recommendation of the Screening Committee and instead, vide Subject No.6 in the proceedings held on 19/11/2014, awarded Plot No.11 to respondent No.5 and Plot No.16 to respondent No.6, though she had not even asked for the same. The petitioner issued legal notice to the respondents through his counsel. The respondents did not heed to the same. Aggrieved of the action of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner has filed the captioned Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents have urged several contentions. Sri.D.P.Ambekar., learned counsel for the petitioner in presenting his arguments strenuously urged that the petitioner applied for Plot No.16 and respondents 5 and 6 both applied for allotment of Plot No.11. He argued by saying that the respondent No.6 has not applied for allotment of Plot No.16, however, the Deputy Commissioner allotted Plot No.16 to respondent No.6 saying that she is a woman entrepreneur. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the action on the part of the Deputy Commissioner, is unsustainable in law. By way of reply to this contention, Sri.Sachin M.Mahajan., learned counsel for respondent No.6 justified the action of the Deputy Commissioner. He argued by saying that respondent No.6 is a woman entrepreneur and the petitioner is a manufacturer of tractor and trailer, hence, taking note of the same, the Deputy Commissioner has allotted Plot No.16 to respondent No.6, hence, the petitioner cannot have any grievance. Accordingly, he submits that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.