Back
2007(6) Kar. L.J. 426
AJIT J. GUNJAL, J.
SRI BALAJI AMENITY CENTER, BANGALORE -Appellant
versus
THE CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BANGALORE AND OTHERS -Respondent
Writ Petition No. 41827 of 2004
Decided on :16th September, 2006
Cases Referred: (1999)3 SCC 494; AIR 1989 Sc 1256; (1994)6 SCC 651; AIR 2003 SC 4536.
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Regulations, 1969 - Regulations 10 and 4 - Application for allotment of land - Application incomplete with certain reference to applicants and proposed project - Board neither advertised nor invited applications for allotment of land - Applicants on their own volition applied and huge sum deposited where only Rs. 100/- was required to be deposited as earnest money - As Board reserves power to dispose of land, applicant with all these discrepancies cannot claim any right. [Ajit. J. Gunjal, J.]: Regulation 4(c) would specifically deal with a situation where the applications either incomplete or not accompanied by the earnest money fee of Rs. 100/- shall not be considered. If one were to scrutinize, the application filed by the petitioners, it does not confirm to the provisions of Regulation 4(a) & 4(c). Admittedly, the application is incomplete with certain reference to the petitioners and the proposed setting up of an Amenity center. As stated no information is forthcoming in respect of the material particulars. Regulation 5 would deal with the Boards power for disposal of a land. The Board has retained powers to dispose of the land in several manners i.e., by lease, lease cum-sale, sale, auction-sale, auction-lease, assignment or otherwise. Regulation 7 would deal with inviting of applications wherein the applications are invited by wide publicity given through the newspapers having circulation in and outside Karnataka State. It is not in dispute that the Board did not advertise nor it had invited applications for the allotment of any site. The petitioner on its own volition has made an application for allotment of a site. Even in the application, it is not stated as to what is the extent of the land, which is required for setting up of an Amenity center. It is rather stating to note as to why the petitioner should deposit a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs) with the respondent Board, when the actual amount, which is required to be deposited as earnest money is only Rs. 100/-. Apparently, it appears that the petitioner wanted to speculate and if in the bargain, he could be allotted a land.
Cases Referred: (1999)3 SCC 494; AIR 1989 Sc 1256; (1994)6 SCC 651; AIR 2003 SC 4536.
Administrative Law - Judicial review of administrative action - When permissible and when not. Dilatory Settled Principles : The principle enumerated from the above are the modem traits in administrative action. Note: The Court does not sit as a Court of appeal as it reviews in the manner in which the decision was made. The Government must have freedom of contract. /n other words, a fair claim is necessarily concomitant from admin istrative body functioning or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision is not only tested by the Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness (including its other facts) must be free from arbitrariness and not affected by bias actuated by mala fides. Quashing of decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the un-objected expenditure [(1994) 6 SCC 651].
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 115 - Promissory / Equitable estappel - Held, there is no estappel against law [(1999) 3 SCC 494; AIR 1989 SC 1256].
Cases Referred: (1999)3 SCC 494; AIR 1989 Sc 1256; (1994)6 SCC 651; AIR 2003 SC 4536.
Legitimate Expectation - Invocation of the doctrine - Unless a right is derived or accrued, the doctrine cannot be invoked - An action taken contrary to law would not give raise to any right.
Cases Referred: (1999)3 SCC 494; AIR 1989 Sc 1256; (1994)6 SCC 651; AIR 2003 SC 4536.
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Judicial review - Scope of - Court can iterfere with an administrative action only when it is shown that decision making process is wrong - But not when derision itself is wrong - Matters falling within the realm of contracts are not open to judicial review.
Referred: (1999)3 SCC 494; AIR 1989 Sc 1256; (1994)6 SCC 651; AIR 2003 SC 4536.
The matrix of the case can be summarised as follows.-
The petitioner is a project constituted by the promoters in the name and style of M/s, Bglaji Amenity Center, The petitioners' case is that the said project is designed to support the growth and developmental activities in the IT Corridor and Export Promotion Industrial Park (for short, 'EPIP') area, which intended to provide facilities such as Lodging, Service Suits (Apartments), Restaurants, Business Center and Executive Club, Banquet Hall and Conference Rooms, Health Club etc. The petitioners through its promoters had applied for allotment of half an acre of civic amenities plot in EPIP area; near SAP Labs on 8th April, 2004. The said application was accompanied by earnest money forming a part of the price, remitted a total sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs) through Demand Draft drawn on Vysya Bank dated 7th April, 2004 and another Demand Draft drawn on Indian Overseas Bank dated 8th April, 2004. A copy of the said application is at Annexure-B. The petitioners would state that they were invited to attend the Screening/ Allotment Committee and after a detailed discussion, the Committee members orally informed the petitioners about the price of allotment per acre of Civic Amenity site at Rs. 1,60,00,000/- (Rupees one crore, sixty lakhs) and informed that they have been allotted half an acre of civic amenity site in EPIP. The 2nd respondent also assured to consider the request of the petitioner to give a reduction to the extent of 15% out of the total price. The petitioner would state that the said oral intimation was later confirmed pursuant to the letter dated 2nd June, 2004. A copy of the said letter is to be found at Annexure-C. The petitioners, it appears on the basis of the said communication issued at Annexure-C were awaiting further correspondence from the respondents 1 and 2 regarding finalization of the incidental documentation in the KIADB Standard format of the respondents and requested the respondents through their letter dated 21-9-2004 to expedite the same to enable them to proceed further. It is the case of the petitioners that the arrangement for allotment of half an acre in favour of the petitioner has been approved by the Board as per Annexure-C. The petitioners had the fond hope that the respondents would comply with the legal requirement of execution of the document in favour of them and hand-over possession. But however, they were shocked and surprised that the respondents had issued a public auction notification dated 29th September, 2004 in respect of the said civic amenity site. A copy of the said publication is at Annexure-E. The petitioner in view to the said auction notification wrote to the respondents arid requested that the said auction, which was to be held on 29th September, 2004 was unjust.
The respondents have responded to the said communication pursuant to Annexure-G, dated 20-9-2004. The said communicati6'n at Annexure-G is in the nature that the application of the petitioner' is rejected.
According to the petitioners, the said communication issued at Annexure-G is in the nature of a cancellation of the allotment of half an' acre of land in civic amenity site No. 128-part of EPIP Area, as the petitioners have already been allotted a plot measuring half an acre in the said EPIP Industrial area on 11-12-1996 in the trade name of Balaji Corporate Services, wherein a hotel has already been set up. In these circumstances, the respondents have decided to conduct a public auction for disposal of Civic Amenity Plot No. 128-Part. They also informed the petitioners that they could participate in the said public auction. The said communication at Annexure-G is questioned in this petition.
2. The relief, which is sought for by the petitioners is in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to quash Annexure-G and also for a direction to the respondents to complete the documentation and confirm the allotment in their f
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
