IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO. 26399 OF 2018 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

M/S BIOPHARMA LABORATORIES

A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER

THE COMPANIES ACT,

NO.14/2, N.S. IYENGAR STREET,

SHESHADRIPURAM,

BENGALURU-560 020.

REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER

SRI. ASHOK KUMAR C

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VENKATESH R BHAGAT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Digitally signed

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

by SACHIN

DEPARTMENT OF VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT

Location: HIG H

COURT OF AND PANCHAYATH RAJ,

KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,

VIKASA SOUDHA,

BENGALURU - 560001.

2. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

SOMPURA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

NELAMANGALA TALUK,

BENGALURU RURAL-562111.

3. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD

NO.14/3, 2^ND FLOOR, R.P. BUILDING,

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,

BENGALURU - 560001.

REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSION.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

SRI. M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;

SRI. H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 18.08.2017 IN NO.NIL ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged a demand notice dated

18.08.2017 issued by respondent No.2. It has also sought for a declaration that the aforesaid notice is not in accordance with law and to direct the respondent No.2 to return the seized articles belonging to the petitioner.

2.(i) The petitioner claims that the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short, 'the KIADB') executed a lease-cum-sale agreement dated 03.03.2008 in its favour in respect of plot No.4-J and 4-K of Dobaspet I Phase Industrial Area, situate in Sy. No. parts of 97 and 102 of Yedehally village, Somapura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, measuring 4321.41 Sq. m. (henceforth referred to as 'the subject property'). Subsequently, sale deed was executed by the KIADB in its favour in respect of the subject property on 09.02.2015. Pursuant to the allotment, the petitioner has obtained approval from the KIADB to put up an industrial shed. The petitioner claims that it has set up a small scale industry and manufacturing pharmaceutical products.

(ii). The petitioner further claims that as per the Karnataka New Industrial Policy-2009, KIADB is bound to provide all basic amenities in industrial areas and the maintenance of these industrial areas would be transferred to local bodies / industry associations. Wherever, these arrangements could not be provided, KIADB itself took up the responsibilities of maintaining the basic amenities.

(iii). The petitioner further claims that it had paid the building tax as demanded by the Sompura Gram Panchayat and obtained no due certificates. Despite the same, respondent No.2 - Panchayat Development Officer of the said Panchayat has issued the impugned notice demanding from the petitioner an amount of Rs.7,64,167/- including trade (general) licence cost at the rate of Rs.5,000/- every year amounting to Rs.55,000/- without deducting the amount already paid by the petitioner.

(iv). The petitioner contends that it is a Pharmaceutical manufacturer and has employed about 65 workers to run the industry. The respondent No.2 is not providing any facilities or services for the industries situate at Dobaspet including the industry run by the petitioner and such facilities are provided to it by the KIADB. The respondent No.2 has irrationally fixed the tax rates and has been selective in raising demands from the industries. Hence, the impugned demand notice issued by the respondent No.2 is arbitrary, unscientific and unsustainable in law.

(v). The petitioner further claims that on 09.03.2018, the respondent No.2 illegally entered