An individual or entity lacking direct interest cannot contest administrative decisions regarding Distance Certificates or IEM annulments without due process being followed, specifically the provision of a hearing.

JUDGMENT :

R.Devdas, J.

The petitioner who was respondent No.6 before the learned Single Judge in a writ petition filed at the hands of the respondent No.6-herein, is seeking to assail the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.201621/2023 dated 28.06.2023.

2. It is not in dispute that the appellant herein was granted IEM during the year 2010. However, by order dated 28.03.2019 the IEM was de-recognized and bank guarantee was confiscated. The appellant herein seems to have made communication/representation on 05.11.2022 seeking extension of time for implementation of the project in terms of the IEM issued in the year 2010. In the meanwhile, however the respondent No.6 herein had sought for a distance certificate and a distance certificate was issued on 10.10.2022. The Secretary to the Department of Commerce and Industries, Government of Karnataka, forwarded the distance certificate of respondent No.6 to the competent authority namely the Chief Director (Sugars) and the Secretary to the Department of Promotion of Industry, Union of India. On 15.11.2022 IEM was granted to respondent No.6. A day earlier to the issuance of the IEM in favour of respondent No.6, the appellant herein filed writ petition No.203011/2022 challenging the order dated 28.03.2019. Curiously, even before the respondent No.6 was granted IEM, it was made a party respondent to the proceedings. During the course of the writ petition, it appears that M/s. Basaveshwara Sugars & Energy Limited was issued a distance certificate on 16.08.2023. It is sought to be contended at the hands of the appellant herein that M/s. Basaveshwara Sugars & Energy Limited and the appellant are one and the same. Following the issuance of the distance certificate, M/s. Basaveshwara Sugars & Energy Limited is said to have been issued with the acknowledgement for having filed IEM and it is contended that the requisite payment of bank guarantee of Rs.1 Crore was also made on 27.09.2023.

3. In the meanwhile, the acknowledgement of IEM issued in favour of respondent No.6 was annulled by order dated 22.02.2022. Being aggrieved of the said order and having come to know that the appellant herein was issued a distance certificate, the respondent No.6 filed W.P.No.201621/2023 calling in question the order dated 22.02.2023 and seeking a declaration that the distance certificate dated 10.10.20222 issued in its favour is valid.

4. Learned Single Judge held while rejecting the contentions of respondent No.6 that once IEM is submitted for manufacture of sugar, in terms of Clause-6B(2) of the Control Order, a performance guarantee was required to be furnished by the respondent No.6. However, the learned Single Judge also held that the order dated 22.02.2023 passed by the respondent authority annulling the Distance Certificate issued in favour of the 6th respondent was without affording an opportunity of hearing and therefore, having regard to the provisions contained in the Control order, such an order could not have been passed without issuing a show cause notice to the 6th respondent. In that view of the matter, the writ petition filed by the 6th respondent was allowed while quashing the order dated 22.02.2023 and directing the respondent authorities to issue a show cause notice to the 6th respondent within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The 6th respondent was directed to submit a reply within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The authorities were required to pass necessary orders and complete the entire process within 30 days from the date of receipt of the reply at the hands of the 6th respondent. Being ag