Contractual obligations must be fulfilled sequentially; non-compliance by one party precludes claims against the other, emphasizing the principle of mutual obligation under the Indian Contract Act.

ORDER :

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.

1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

i. A writ of certiorari or any other writ quashing the impugned cancellation letters bearing no. IADB/HO/ALLOT/AS/18578/4595/15-16 dated 6^th July 2015 (Annexure-N) and No. IADB/HO/ALLOT/AS/18578/12776/15-16 dated 11^th December 2015 (Annexure-V)

ii. Direction to the R1 to restore the allotment of 6 acres as per letter bearing No. IADB/HO/ALLOT/AS-2/18578/1114/09-10 dated 14^th December 2009 (Annexure-C) on the terms and conditions as mentioned in the said Allotment Letter.

iii. As a consequence of the above, declare that any lease cum sale agreement that is entered into by the 3^rd Respondent with the 1^st Respondent as void ab initio.

iv. Grant such other further reliefs that may be prayed for during the course of the oral arguments with the kind leave of this Hon’ble Court, on obtaining the documents from the 1^st and 2^nd Respondent under the Right to Information Act.

2. The Petitioner claims to be a proprietary concern established for manufacturing and dealing with wooden furniture and allied wood products in the year 1908, with the fourth generation continuing the business. The Petitioner wanted to expand its business using the latest technology. The Karnataka Udyog Mitra (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘KUM’) had held a global investors' meet where the Petitioner submitted its project report to establish an industry for manufacturing wooden furniture on six acres of land in Bidadi Industrial Area, which came to be approved by the Single Window Agency on 12.11.2009.

3. The Land Audit Committee took note of the land utilisation details of the Petitioner and submitted it to the KUM and agreed to consider the allotment of six acres in Plot Nos.34, 35 and 36 of Bidadi's IInd Phase Industrial Area and directed the Petitioner to make payment of the balance amount of Rs.3,74,40,000/-.

4. The Petitioner thereafter arranged finances to make payment. Accordingly, on 08.03.2010, the Canara Bank had sanctioned a loan of Rs. 8,07,00,000/- for the cost of land and construction of the building, as also purchase of machinery.

5. The Petitioner, on inspection of the land, found that the area was yet to be developed, there were certain problems unsolved and as a result withheld the payment of the balance amount. The Respondent- KIADB, vide its letter dated 27.09.2010, on its own without any request made by the Petitioner, granted extension of time for payment of the balance amount with interest at the rate of 12.75% from 14.06.2010.

6. The Petitioner on 23.10.2010 wrote to the KIADB about the lack of development in the allotted land, reiterating that the funds were available and would be so paid once the development was completed by the KIADB. Instead of replying to the allegations made by the Petitioner, the KIADB, vide its letter dated 23.10.2010, granted an extension of 10 days' time to make payment of the balance amount. The bank also wrote to the KIADB on 29.11.2010, stating that the balance amount was ready to be paid, and called upon the Respondent No.1 to arrange for a site visit to complete some formalities.

7. The Petitioner and Chief Manager of Canara Bank are stated to have visited the plots on 05.04.2011, when the plots could not be located. Further, they also found that agricultural activities were being carried out in many of the lands and as such, these were brought to the notice