PRATEEK CNC Vs. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.12.2016 in W.P. No. 62740 of 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which, the writ petition was dismissed, the petitioner is in appeal.

(2.) The petitioner filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash letter dated 21.11.2016 Annexure-A and notice dated 21.07.2016 issued under Section 34B of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The petitioner was allotted industrial plot bearing No. 221, Harohalli II Phase, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, measuring 4015 Sq.mtrs. Lease-cum-Sale Agreement was also executed on 13.01.2010 in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner applied for Building Plan on 26.10.2013, which was sanctioned on 13.03.2014. Due to litigation between the land owner and the respondent, the petitioner was prevented from implementing the project. One of the conditions of Lease-cum-Sale Agreement was that the petitioner shall implement the project on or before 01.09.2012 i.e., two years from the date of Lease-cum-Sale Agreement or handing over possession. The petitioner had taken possession of the land in question on 02.09.2010. As the petitioner could not implement the project within the stipulated time, he made representation on 28.10.2013 seeking extension of time for implementation of the project. The first respondent by letter dated 13.02.2014 extended the time for implementation of the project by one year. Thereafter, the respondent issued notice dated 21.07.2016 to the petitioner under Section 34B of the Act to show cause as to why the land should not be repossessed for failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the lease and for not implementing the project within the stipulated time. The petitioner by his letter dated 25.08.2016 again sought for extension of time by one more year for implementing the project. The first respondent-Board by its letter dated 24.09.2016 called upon the petitioner to appear before the CEO and EM on 03.10.2016 for personal hearing. The petitioner made one more representation dated 01.10.2016 stating that they have already started construction activity and will be able to complete construction within 6 to 8 months time. The first respondent-Board after hearing the petitioner by its order dated 11.11.2016 extended the time by one more year subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 89,29,122/- within thirty days, failing which, the allotment would automatically stand cancelled. The petitioner was also issued with demand notice dated 21.11.2016 to pay a sum of Rs. 89,29,122/- within thirty days. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.

(3.) It was contended before the learned Single Judge that petitioner is a Small Scale Industry, with great difficulty the petitioner is running the industry in a rented building. It is contended that the demand notice is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There is no basis for the demand made by the respondents as they have not incurred any expenditure subsequent to allotment of land to the petitioner. The learned Single Judge by his reasoned order dismissed the writ petition holding that in contractual matters, the Court would not entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further observed that the petitioner having taken extension of time, again sought for time which was granted subject to deposit of the amount stated in the demand notice, which is not unreasonable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge the petitioner is in appeal.