Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 12395
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J
M/S UNIVERSAL FLEXIBLES PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD – Respondent
WP 1819 / 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT. DESIREE PAIS, ADV., FOR SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, ADV.
For the Respondents: SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADV., FOR R1 TO R3
A writ petition does not survive for consideration if the foundational basis for the relief sought is no longer applicable, as highlighted by the abandonment of the project.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Writ petition for mandamus - Petitioners sought approval of building plan and extension for commencing production - Respondents stated that the Bengaluru Aerospace Park project has been abandoned, rendering the petition moot - Court ordered return of original documents submitted by petitioners within 45 days - Liberty granted to petitioners for further claims. (Paras 1-4)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court clarified that when the foundational basis for the relief sought is no longer applicable, the petition does not survive for consideration. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought relief regarding the approval of a building plan for a project that has been abandoned by the respondents, as confirmed by an affidavit from the CEO of KIADB.
Findings of Court:
The court disposed of the writ petition, ordering the return of original documents and leaving open the possibility for the petitioners to seek damages.
Issues: The main issue was the mootness of the petition due to the abandonment of the project by the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the petition could not be considered when the underlying project was no longer being pursued, emphasizing the need for relevance in legal requests.
Result: Writ petition disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek approval for building plans and extensions. (Para 1) |
| 2. bengaluru aerospace park project has been withdrawn. (Para 2) |
| 3. kiadb must return original documents to petitioners. (Para 3) |
| 4. writ petition disposed; petitioners can seek damages elsewhere. (Para 4 , 5) |
ORAL ORDER
1. Petitioners are before this court seeking for the following reliefs:
"i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing CEO & EM of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, the 2nd Respondent to forthwith approve the building plan submitted by the Petitioners for plot number AM2 P4, and extend time to the Petitioners to commence production by a minimum of twelve months from the date of approval of building plan.
ii. Direct the Respondents to Facilitate and help the 2nd Petitioner to obtain all necessary statutory clearances.
iii. Direct the Respondents to enable the 2nd Petitioner to execute the ACFF Project in terms of the Tender Agreement including construction of Building and procurement of Machinery.
iv. Direct the Respondents to pay the costs of this Petition and grant such other and further reliefs as are just.
v. Grant such other and further reliefs as are just including the cost of this writ petition."
2. The reliefs which have been sought for in the present petition are premised on the fact that the respondents are implementing the Bengaluru Aerospace Park at Devanahalli. An affidavit of the CEO & EM of KIADB has been filed on 29.04.2025 categorically stating that the Union of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry having withdrawn the grant, the proposal for implementation of the Bangalore Aerospace Park, Devanahalli has been given up and is not going to be implemented. Such being the categorical statement, the relief which have been sought for in the present petition would not survive for consideration.
3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage is that the petitioners have submitted several original documents to the KIADB which would have to be returned back. If at all any original documents have been furnished, the KIADB cannot retain the said documents and would have to return the same to the petitioners at the earliest at any rate within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order on the petitioners furnishing duly authenticated photocopies thereof.
4. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum agitating any relief for damages, if at all the petitioners were so desirous which shall be decided in accordance with law.
5. All contentions kept open.
