IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO.85389 OF 2013 (GM-KSSIDC)

BETWEEN:

M/S ANNAPURNA FOOD INTERNATIONAL, PLOT NO.R 37, INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT, MANAKI VILLAGE, KUMTA, BY ITS PARTNER, SMT. DHANASHREE VINAYAK SHANBAG @ BALERI AGE : NO.684/685, BALERI HOUSE, NEAR CANARA BANK, CAR STREET, KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581354.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. KARNATAKA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICER BUILDING, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL RAJAJINAGAR, DVPAIiSg T iHT taAI l HLy A Ns L iIgNnGedA PbPyA BANGALORE-560044.

LOD o HFc A aKR tAio WRnNA : DAHT I B GAEKH NA C C O H URT R/BY MANAGING DIRECTOR.

2. DEPUTY CHIEF MANAGER (IES)

KSSIDC LIMITED, HUBLI-580030, DIST: DHARWAD.

3. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (IES)

KSSIDC LIMITED, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHARMILA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION NO.AGM.NTFN/SHEDS/ FLATS/PLOTS/2013-14/10339 DATED 12.11.2013, ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE A IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO PLOT NO.R 37 FORMED IN INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT FORMED IN SY NO.70/A/2 OF MANAKI VILLAGE, KUMTA TALUK, DISTRICT: UTTARA KANNADA, AS SHOWN IN THE STATEMENT PREPARED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE B & ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)

The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning Annexure-A, Notification dated 12.11.2013 issued by the respondents notifying allotment of different types of industrial sheds in various places of the State including R-Type shed at Kumta measuring 378 sq. mtrs.

2. Heard Sri. J.S.Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Sharmila M.Patil, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was allotted an industrial shed at Kumta by Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Corporation’) and, in pursuance to the allotment, the respondents executed a lease- cum-sale agreement on 13.04.2000. It is also stated that on 18.09.1999 itself, the industrial plot was put in possession of the petitioner-firm. On 06.12.2000, the Executive Engineer of respondents-Corporation approved the sketch to construct industrial shed. Further, it is stated that on 24.02.2011, the petitioner-firm made an application to the Kumta Town Municipal Council seeking permission for construction of industrial shed/building and that the same was granted. Thereafter, the petitioner is said to have made an application to the respondents-Corporation seeking permission to get water and electric connection for manufacturing activity. At that stage, the respondents issued Notification dated 12.11.2013 (Annexure-A), notifying petitioner’s industrial shed for re-allotment. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that no notice was issued for cancellation of the allotment and without there being any proceedings, the respondents could not have cancelled the allotment. Moreover, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner has already constructed a building which the respondents failed to take note of.

4. Per contra, Smt. Sharmila M.Patil, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the lease-cum-sale agreement and as such, the petitioner was issued with several notices calling upon the petition