LexCHAIRMAN AND M.D., B.P.L. LTD. versus S.P. GURURAJA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
·---' CHAIRMAN AND M.D., B.P.L. LTD. A v. S.P. GURURAJA AND ORS. OCTOBER 13, 2003 [V.N. KHARE, CJ. ASHOK BHAN AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] B Regulations governing the disposal of land by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board-Regulations 7 and 13-Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966--Sections 17 and 41-Allotment of industrial land-Development Board-Powers of-Applications invited for allotment C of land for setting up industries-High Level Committee constituted by Board for considering such applications through one window system- Decision by High Level Committee for allotment of land to appellant- company-Recourse to Regulation 13 which provided for allotment of plots in special cases of any plot other than those advertised for under D Regulation 7-Matter relating to allotment of land being a statutory function of the Board-Held, the Board and the State had not committed any illegality which could have been a subject matter of judicial review- Though normally allotment of industrial plots was to be done under Regulation 7, the Board was not precluded to take recourse to Regulation 13 having regard to the fact situation-Consultation done with State Govt. E in terms of provisions of Act-Held, it was open to the competent authorities to evolve their own procedure as no procedure for holding such consultations has been laid down-Such a procedure of taking a decision upon deliberations does not fall foul of Article 14 of Constitution of India- Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14 and 16. F Policy decision-Interference with-Price fixation-Industrial land- Allotment of land at a lower price to appellant company although the State received a consideration of a higher price from another entrepreneur- Interference by Court-Held, the allotment price having regard to the policy decision of the State as also the facts and circumstances of the G case cannot be said to be wholly arbitrary warranting interference by Court-Unless there is violation of statutory provisions under which the power is exercised or it is held that a decision is taken for unauthorized or illegal purpose, the Court will not ordinarily interfere with the policy ~~ H 587 588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A Judicial review-Scope of-Held, undue haste cannot be a ground for exercise of power of judicial review unless it is held to be malafide-A decision taken after due application of mind cannot be held to be suffering from malice in law on ground of undue haste-In absence of any finding that any legal malice was committed, the allotment of land to appellant B company could not have been interfered with. Public Interest Litigation: Allotment of industrial land Allottee taking possession and making huge investments-Petition filed after one year-Held, delay of this nature C should have been considered by High Court to be of vital importance- Further, locus standi of respondents ought to have been taken into consideration having regard to the specific pleas that petition had been filed by those whose lands had been acquired · D A statutory authority, namely the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, was constituted under Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. In terms of the said Act, the State Government was empowered to acquire land and.to handover the same to the Board (or development and allotment to eligible industries. For E this purpose, the Industrial Board with the previous approval of the State Government, framed regulations known as 'Regulations governing the disposal of land by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board.' Regulation 7 of the said Regulations provided that the Eoard shall notify the availability of land and invite applications from industries or persons intending to start industries. Regulation 13 F provided for allotment of plots in special cases. According to Regulation 13, the Board in consultation with the State Government may allot any plot other than those in respect of which applications are called for under Regulation 7 to any individual or company for the establishment of an industry. G The Board acquired a vast tract of land inter alia for the purpose of allotment to entrepreneurs who intended to set up industries in the State. The State, with a view to accelerate economic development of the State, adopted a policy decision of dealing with the applications H received from the enterpreneurs through one window
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.