M/S. GOPALAN ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 26.11.2016 passed by respondent No. 4 as at Annexure -M to the petition. By the order impugned, the Lease agreement dated 26.11.2008 and 28.07.2010 are terminated and resumption of the land allotted in favour of the petitioner was decided.

(2.) The undisputed facts in this case is that the petitioner establishment applied to respondent No.2 - KIADB for allotment of land for the purpose of setting up of a Special Economic Zone ('SEZ' for short) electronic software and hardware park at Mysuru. Accordingly, after consideration of the proposal, respondent No.2 allotted the Industrial Plot No.1 of Koorgally Industrial Area, Yelwala Hobli, Mysuru District, through the allotment letter dated 26.06.2008. The lease deed in respect of Item No.1 property was executed on 30.06.2008, while the lease deed in respect of the Item No. 2 property was executed on 28.07.2010. In so far as the allotment made by respondent No.2, the terms and conditions were regulated as agreed under the lease deed. In that background having secured the allotment of land, the petitioner commenced the process of setting up the SEZ IT Park. As required under the procedure as contemplated under The Special Economic Zones Act,2005 ('SEZ Act' for short) respondent No.1 granted the approval on 14.07.2010, which was forwarded to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industries, whereafter the proposal was to be considered and the approval was to be granted by the competent authority. In the said process correspondence was exchanged and the approval was ultimately granted to the petitioner on 06.04. 2016.

(3.) Though time was spent in such manner relating to the approval, since according to respondent No.2 the construction activity and the completion of the project was to be done by the petitioner within the time period agreed under the lease deed, the respondents addressed letters calling upon the petitioner to complete the project. The petitioner no doubt through their reply have given the justification relating to the process taken for seeking approval and had therefore sought for extension of time. However, respondent No.4 has ultimately by the impugned order dated 26.11.2016 cancelled the lease deed and withdrew the allotment. It is in that light the petitioner being aggrieved is before this Court assailing such action of respondents No.2 to 4.