Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38548
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Vibhu Bakhru, CJ, C.M. Poonacha, J
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board – Appellant
Versus
Lightsquare Designs Pvt Ltd – Respondent
WA No. 530 of 2025 | WA No. 510 of 2025 | WA No. 511 of 2025 | WA No. 512 of 2025 | WA No. 513 of 2025 | WA No. 514 of 2025 | WA No. 518 of 2025 | WA No. 521 of 2025 | WA No. 524 of 2025 | WA No. 525 of 2025 | WA No. 527 of 2025 | WA No. 528 of 2025 | WA No. 534 of 2025 | WA No. 544 of 2025 | WA No. 545 of 2025 | WA No. 731 of 2025 | WA No. 734 of 2025 | WA No. 751 of 2025 | WA No. 785 of 2025 | WA No. 792 of 2025 | WA No. 797 of 2025 | WA No. 809 of 2025 | WA No. 812 of 2025 | WA No. 918 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B.B. Patil
For the Respondents: Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, Namitha Mahesh, K.S. Harish
Statutory body recommendations are binding on implementing entities. A state authority cannot disregard these mandates based on alleged quota violations without presenting empirical evidence to substantiate that the specific thresholds established under industrial policy have been exceeded.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Facilitation Act - Section 11 - Binding nature of committee recommendations - Industrial policy regarding land allocation quotas for micro, small, and medium enterprises.
(B) Administrative Law - State instrumentality - Obligation to act transparently and fairly - Evidentiary burden - An entity must provide material evidence to substantiate claims that committee-recommended allocations exceed specified policy quotas.
(C) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope - Appeals are not intended to allow parties to bypass statutory mandates without presenting evidence previously available but not produced. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The board filed multiple appeals against an order mandating the implementation of land allocation recommendations issued by a district-level clearance committee. The board contended that these recommendations violated the 15% land reservation quota prescribed for specific enterprise categories under the prevailing industrial policy.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the recommendations of the committee were statutorily binding. The board failed to produce sufficient material evidence to establish that the challenged allocations exceeded the 15% quota or that the board lacked necessary resources. The court further noted that the board’s own representative was a member of the decision-making committee, weakening the claim of procedural impropriety.
Issues: Whether the implementation of committee-driven land allocation recommendations is mandatory, and whether the primary entity can disregard such recommendations based on unverified assertions of policy violations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that committee recommendations are binding on the implementing authority. Furthermore, the burden of proof to demonstrate a violation of policy-mandated quotas rests solely on the authority challenging the recommendations. Without empirical evidence of a quota breach, an entity cannot unilaterally disregard statutory committee directives.
Result: Appeals disposed of with the clarification that the judgment shall not serve as a precedent precluding the board from challenging future allocations if they are substantiated by evidence of policy non-compliance.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. statutory obligations of kiadb to comply with binding recommendations of the dlswcc under section 11 of the karnataka industries (facilitation act) 2002. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. the burden of proof lies on the state instrumentality to provide evidence if asserting non-compliance with policy quotas for land allocation. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. administrative bodies must challenge binding committee recommendations through proper legal channels rather than unilaterally ignoring them. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
WRIT APPEAL NO. 530/2025 (GM-KIADB)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 510/2025, WRIT APPEAL NO. 511/ 2025,
WRIT APPEAL NO. 512/2025, WRIT APPEAL NO. 513/2025,
WRIT APPEAL NO. 514/2025, WRIT APPEAL NO. 518/2025,
WRIT APPEAL NO. 521/2025, WRIT APPEAL NO. 524/2025,
WRIT APPEAL NO. 525/2025, WRIT APPEAL NO. 527/2025,
WRIT APPEAL NO. 528/2025, WRIT APPEAL NO. 534/2025,
WRIT APPEAL NO. 544/2025, WRIT APPEAL NO. 545 /2025,
WRIT APPEAL NO. 731/2025, WRIT APPEAL NO. 734/2025,
WRIT APPEAL NO. 751/2025, WRIT APPEAL NO. 785/2025,
WRIT APPEAL NO. 792/2025, WRIT APPEAL NO. 797/2025,
WRIT APPEAL NO. 809/2025, WRIT APPEAL NO. 812/2025,
WRIT APPEAL NO. 918/2025 (GM-KIADB)
IN WA No. 530/2025
BETWEEN:
1. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
#49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING
KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S LIGHTSQUARE DESIGNS PVT LTD.,
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR.YASHAWANT MEHTA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
NO.81/1. MTB MAHAMEERU
RICHMOND ROAD
BANGALORE SOUTH - 560 025.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT
M. S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 &
SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R-2)
IN WA NO. 510/2025
BETWEEN:
1. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
#49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING
KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI B. B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S TANGLE OAKS
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SMT. LEELAVATHI M.,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
PLOT NO.07, DREAM MEADOWS
NEAR RYAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL
BROOKFIELD, KUNDALAHALLI
BANGALORE - 560 037.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT
M. S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 025.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE
FOR R-1 &
SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R-2)
IN WA NO. 511/2025
BETWEEN:
1. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
#49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING
KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S TRILLIANE ENTERPRISES PVT LTD.
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR. YASHAWANTH MEHTA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
NO.81/1 RICHMOND ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 025.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT
M. S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 025.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE
FOR R-1 &
SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
IN WA NO. 512/2025
BETWEEN:
1. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
#49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER &
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S MR IT PARK
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR
MISS ROSHINI L
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
NO.114, 5TH MAIN ROAD
1ST BLOCK, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE VTC
BANGALORE SOUTH - 560 058.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT
M. S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 025.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE
FOR R-1 &
SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R-2)
IN WA NO. 513/2025
BETWEEN:
1. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
#49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M
