IDBI BANK LIMITED vs KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD

- 1 -
WA No. 499 of 2024


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R

TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF APRIL, 2026


PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

WRIT APPEAL NO. 499 OF 2024 (GM-KIADB)


BETWEEN:

IDBI BANK LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED AND
REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES
ACT, 1956 AND A BANKING COMPANY
WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SECTION 5(C) OF THE BANKING
REGULATION ACT 1949
AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
IDBI TOWER, WTC COMPLEX
CUFFEE PARADE, MUMBAI - 400 005
AND ITS ZONAL OFFICE AT
IDBI HOUSE, 58
MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. VENUGOPAL N
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI K G RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI TEJAS S R, ADVOCATE)

AND:

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
HAVING IT OFFICE AT 14/3,
ND
2 FLOOR, R.P BUILDING,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001











Digitally
signed by
NIRMALA
DEVI
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
WA No. 499 of 2024


REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
EXECUTIVE MEMBER
MR MAHESH M IAS
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL/
SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 &
SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI AJAY J NANDALIKE, FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT
IN I.A. No.3/2024)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS FROM THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
OF HON'BLE COURT IN W.P No. 29319/2023 AND SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 06.03.2024 PASSED BY ALLOWING THIS
APPEAL.

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS
PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

1. The present intra Court appeal is filed by the writ petitioner
impugning the order dated 06.03.2024 [ impugned order ] passed

- 3 -
WA No. 499 of 2024


in Writ Petition No.29319/2023 [ subject writ petition ] whereunder,
the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned
Single Judge. The said petition was filed seeking to quash the
communication dated 20.12.2022 whereunder, the respondent -
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board [ KIADB ] cancelled
the allotment of land made in favour of the petitioner. In the said
petition, a direction was also sought to the KIADB to execute a
lease-cum-sale agreement in favour of the petitioner in terms of the
allotment letter dated 15.02.2013.

2. The relevant facts in a nutshell are that the appellant had
made an application for allotment of 10 acres of land for the
purpose of utilizing the same for construction of buildings to
accommodate its Regional Processing Unit, Currency Chest
Training Centre, Call Centre, Staff Quarters, etc. Vide the
allotment letter dated 15.02.2013, the KIADB allotted 4.5 acres of
land in Plot No.11 of the Bengaluru Hardware Park [ subject plot ]
on a lease-cum-sale basis for a period of 10 years. The tentative
`
cost of the plot was 1.80 crores per acre. 20% of the tentative
cost of the subject plot was to be paid within 30 days of the
allotment and 80% was to be paid within 180 days, i.e., on or
before 13.08.2013. The appellant paid a sum of `1.80 crores on

- 4 -
WA No. 499 of 2024


26.07.2012 being 20% of the tentative cost of the subject plot and
`
6.30 crores towards the balance 80% of the tentative cost of the
plot on 27.09.2013. Thereafter, KIADB issued a confirmatory letter
of allotment dated 12.08.2014 and also put the appellant in
possession of the subject plot vide Possession Certificate dated
27.12.2014. Vide the terms of the allotment, the appellant was
inter alia required to take possession of the land within 30 days of
making full payment; execute the lease-cum-sale agreement within
30 days of the Possession Certificate; and commence production
within 24 months from taking possession of the plot.

3. The KIADB vide letter dated 23.03.2016 enclosed a copy of
the draft lease-cum-sale agreement [ agreement ], requiring the
appellant to have the same duly signed. However, the appellant
responded to the same requesting certain changes to be made in
the draft of the said agreement sent by KIADB. Various
correspondences were exchanged between the parties with regard
to finalization of certain clauses in the said agreement. However,
there was no resolution with regard to the same. KIADB, vide letter
dated 27.01.2018 informed the appellant that modifications as
sought for in the said agreement cannot be considered. The
appellant, vide letter dated 17.05.2022 sought for further extension

- 5 -
WA No. 499 of 2024


of 3 years for implementation of the project. The KIADB vide
communication dated 20.12.2022 [ impugned communication ]
cancelled the allotment made in favour of the appellant due to non-
adherence of the time schedule of the terms and conditions of
allotment i.e., not executing the said agreement and implementing
the project within the stipulated time. The appellant, being
aggrieved by the impugned communication filed the subject writ
petition.

4. The appellant had, inter alia, contended before the learned
Single Judge that the notice under Section 34-B of the Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 [ KIAD Act ] was required
to be issued, which was admittedly not done. The learned Single
Judge held that the procedure contemplated under Section 34-B of
the KIAD Act is to be followed after execution of the lease-cum-sale
agreement and not prior to. The learned Single Judge also held
that the appellant was not agreeable to clause 5.2(iii) and clause
10(1)(a) of the lease-cum-sale agreement as also clause 20(b) of
the said agreement and hence, admittedly, the lease-cum-sale
agreement had not been executed for more than 10 years since the
issuance of the letter of allotment. Accordingly, the learned Single
Judge dismissed the writ petition.

- 6 -
WA No. 499 of 2024



5. The learned Senior Counsel Sri.K.G.Raghavan appearing
along with Sri Tejas S.R., for the appellant contends that the
procedure under Section 34-B of the KIAD Act was required to be
followed and the appellant ought to have been issued a notice
before cancellation of the allotment. It is further contended that the
finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellant was not in
possession of the allotted plot, is erroneous being contrary to the
material on record. That the KIADB had admittedly put the
appellant in possession of the subject plot. Hence, the learned
Senior counsel seeks the allowing of the writ petition and quashing
of the impugned communication.

6. Per contra, Sri Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Advocate
General appearing for the respondent - KIADB submits that the
learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition
having regard to the admitted position that the appellant had not
executed the lease-cum-sale agreement despite nearly 10 years
having elapsed from the date of the allotment. It is further
contended that the learned Single Judge had rightly dismissed the
writ petition, which order ought not to be interfered with by this
Court in the present appeal.

- 7 -
WA No. 499 of 2024


7. The essential factual matrix is undisputed, inasmuch as the
appellant was allotted the subject plot vide allotment letter dated
15.02.2013. Consequent to the appellant paying the cost of the
subject plot, the KIADB issued a confirmatory letter of allotment
dated 12.08.2014 whereunder, the appellant was, inter alia, called
upon to take possession of the subject plot and Possession
Certificate dated 27.12.2014 was issued.

8. As per the terms of the allotment letter dated 15.02.2013 the
appellant was required to adhere to the time schedule indicated in
the standard conditions attached to the allotment letter. The said
time schedule is as under:

9. The aforesaid time schedule indicates that the possession of
the land was to be taken 30 days from the date of making full
payment; the lease-cum-sale agreement was to be executed within
30 days from the date of receipt of Possession Certificate; and
production was to be commenced 24 months from taking
possession of the land.

- 8 -
WA No. 499 of 2024



10. Admittedly, vide letter dated 23.03.2016, the KIADB enclosed
a draft lease-cum-sale agreement requiring the appellant to sign
and to complete the execution of the same.

11. The appellant vide letter dated 27.06.2016 sought for
modifications in certain clauses of the lease-cum-sale agreement.
The said modifications/changes as sought for by the appellant are
as under:

- 9 -
WA No. 499 of 2024

- 10 -
WA No. 499 of 2024

- 11 -
WA No. 499 of 2024

- 12 -
WA No. 499 of 2024

- 13 -
WA No. 499 of 2024



12. Various communications have been exchanged between the
parties with regard to the modifications sought for by the appellant.
It is further forthcoming from the record that the Reserve Bank of
India brought the appellant under the ambit of 'Prompt Corrective
Action Framework' and all capital expenditure was frozen from
05.05.2017 and was released on 10.03.2021.
13. The KIADB vide letter dated 27.01.2018 communicated to
the appellant that the modifications sought for by the appellant vide
its letter dated 27.06.2016 cannot be considered. The KIADB vide
its letter dated 03/04.09.2018 also intimated the appellant
regarding the decision taken in the meeting of the Board of the
KIADB held on 18.08.2018 wherein the request of the appellant for
extension of time was considered. The appellant was informed that
in terms of the decision of the Board Meeting held on 18.08.2018,
the appellant was requested to obtain the approval from the State
Level Single Window Clearance Committee [SLSWCC].
Subsequently, the appellant vide its letter dated 14.06.2019 sought
the opinion of the KIADB on: a) The amount that may be payable
by the appellant for further extension; b) The amount likely to be
foregone if the appellant decides to back out; and c) whether the
appellant can sell the land either fully or partially in future. The

- 14 -
WA No. 499 of 2024


Board vide its letter dated 07.05.2020 responded to the

clarifications as under:-

14. The KIADB vide its letter dated 28/31.12.2021, once again
requested the appellant to obtain approval from SLSWCC for
extension of time for implementing the project. Despite the said
communications dated 28/31.12.2021, neither did the appellant
approach the SLSWCC seeking for extension of the project nor did
the appellant come forward for execution of the lease-cum-sale
agreement. Subsequently, the KIADB vide the impugned
communication dated 20.12.2022 cancelled the allotment made in
favour of the appellant.

15. In the present case, admittedly, the lease-cum-sale
agreement was not executed within the time specified in the
conditions of the allotment, nor has the appellant commenced

- 15 -
WA No. 499 of 2024


production in compliance with the terms and conditions of the letter
of allotment.

16. It is pertinent to note here that the KIAD Act has been
enacted to promote the establishment and orderly development of
industries. The allotment of industrial land in industrial areas is for
the purpose of industrial development of the State. Despite the
appellant having been allotted the land on 15.02.2013 and the
appellant having been put in possession of the land on 27.12.2014,
the appellant has not come forward to complete the execution of
the lease-cum-sale agreement despite the said agreement having
been sent to it by the KIADB vide its letter dated 23.03.2016.
Further, in terms of the conditions of allotment, the appellant was
also required to commence production within 24 months from the
date of taking possession of the land. Although the appellant was
put in possession of the property, vide possession certificate dated
27.12.2014, the appellant has not commenced production till date.

17. The aspect of allotment of land is stipulated in Regulation 10
of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Regulations,
1969 [ Regulations ] which has been made in exercise of the
powers conferred under Section 41(2)(b) of the KIAD Act, which
reads as under:-

- 16 -
WA No. 499 of 2024


" 10. Allotment.- (a) The Board, on being satisfied that
the person, firm or company who has made an
application is likely to start production within a
reasonable period, and is not one which is declared
obnoxious under Regulation 14 may make an
allotment in his/their favour;

(b) The Board may constitute sub-committees for
considering allotment of plots and also delegate its
power to the Executive Member, if necessary:

(c) The Executive Member shall notify such applicant
to whom an allotment is made to execute the
agreement in Form 3 or 4 or 5 as the case may be
with such modification as may be necessary in each
case on such date, time and place as may be fixed by
the Executive Member and to pay the consideration
for the occupancy of the land as fixed by the Board
within the time fixed by the Board;

(d) Failure to execute the agreement or to pay the
sums demanded by the Executive Member as per the
notice given under Regulation 10(c) will render the
allottee to have deemed to have declined the
allotment;

(e) The Board or with the authority of the Board, the
Executive Member will have the discretion to grant
extension of time for complying with the terms of the
notice issued under Regulation 10(c) with or without
payment of interest at nine per cent on the sums
payable in terms of the said notice for the extended
period."
(emphasis supplied)
18. It is also relevant to notice Regulation 15, which reads as
under:-
" 15. Allottee as a Licensee.- Till the agreement for
lease, sale or lease-cum-sale is executed, the allottee
will be considered as a mere licensee who shall have
licence and authority only to enter upon the land
allotted to him and to start construction of buildings or
works and will have no power to legally alienate his
interest except to the extent allowed by the Board for

- 17 -
WA No. 499 of 2024


raising loans. No sub-division of the plot will be allowed
without the permission of the Board given in writing"
(emphasis supplied)
19. It is clear from a plain reading of Regulation 10(d) that 'a
failure to execute the agreement will render the allottee to have
deemed to have declined the allotment'. Further, a plain reading of
Regulation 15 would indicate that prior to the execution of the
agreement, 'the allottee will be considered as a mere licensee' and
it was entitled to 'enter upon the land allotted to start construction'.
It is clear from the aforementioned that the appellant has been put
in possession of the subject plot as a licensee only for the limited
purpose of commencing construction. Further, default of the
licensee in executing the agreement is to be construed as the
allottee having declined the allotment.
20. A learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of M/s
Imperial Constrafin Pvt. Ltd. v. Chief Executive Officer and
Executive Member, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development
1
Board and others. clearly held that the payments not having
been made in terms of the letter of allotment, cancellation of the
allotment is automatic and issuance of notice under Section 34-B of

1
dated 17.03.2021 passed in WP No.33257/2019

- 18 -
WA No. 499 of 2024


the KIAD Act does not arise. The said view of the learned Single
2
Judge has been upheld by the Division Bench .

21. With regard to the contention put forth on behalf of the
appellant that the procedure under Section 34-B of the KIAD Act
was required to be followed and the appellant was required to be
given notice before the allotment was cancelled, it is pertinent to
note that the learned Single Judge noticed the judgment rendered
by another learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of M/s
Kamalalayya Real Estates LLP v. The Karnataka Industrial
3
Areas Develoment Board wherein, it was held that Section 34-B
of the KIAD Act is to be followed only after execution of the lease-
cum-sale agreement.

22. Section 34B of the KIAD Act reads as under:
“34B : Resumption of the possession of premises
including the residential tenements on breach of terms
and conditions of lease or holding without authority:

(1) Where the Board is of the opinion that an
allottee of any premises or part thereof or residential
tenement in an industrial area or industrial estate has
violated any of the terms or conditions of allotment or
holds it without any authority it may, without prejudice to
Section 25 give notice to such allottee and Banks or
Financial Institutions, in whose favour the Board has
permitted the mortgage or leasehold rights of the

2
Order dated 19.08.2021 passed in WA No.533/2021
3
Writ Petition No.279/2024 decided on 12.01.2024

- 19 -
WA No. 499 of 2024


premises, or residential tenement specifying the
breaches of the terms and conditions of the allotment
calling upon the allottee to remedy such breaches within
a time stipulated in the notice.

(2) If the allottee fails to remedy the breaches
within the time so stipulated, the Board shall serve a
notice upon the allottee under intimation to such Bank or
Financial Institutions to show cause within thirty days
from the date of service of notice, why the possession of
the premises or part thereof or residential tenement
should not be resumed.

(3) After considering the cause, if any, shown by
the allottee and after giving him an opportunity of being
heard, the Board may pass such orders, as it deems fit.

(4) Where the Board passes an order under
subsection (3), for resuming possession of the 50
premises or part thereof or residential tenement in the
industrial area it may, by notice in writing, order any
allottee to surrender and deliver possession thereof to
the Board or any person dully authorized in this behalf
within the date specified in the notice.

(5) If any allottee refuses to surrender or deliver
the possession of the premises or part thereof or
residential tenement within the time specified in the
notice, the Board or any officer authorized by it in this
behalf may resume the possession of the premises or
part thereof or residential tenement free from all
encumbrances and for that purpose may use force as
may be necessary”.


23. The opening sentence of Section 34-B of the KIAD Act
clearly indicates that the same were to be applicable for resumption
of possession for breach in the terms and conditions of lease or
holding without authority. The said provision indicates a situation
where the allottee has been put in possession of the property and

- 20 -
WA No. 499 of 2024


an agreement of lease has been executed. However, in the
present case, no agreement for lease has been executed. The
said provision also contemplates a situation of holding possession
without authority, which is not so in the present case as the allottee
has been put in possession pursuant to the letter of allotment and
is bound by the terms and conditions of the said letter of allotment.

24. It is forthcoming from the material on record that the
appellant was put in possession of the subject plot vide Possession
Certificate dated 27.12.2014, it is clear that the said possession is
only for the limited purpose of commencing construction and no
other right would accrue to the appellant by virtue of being put in
possession of the subject land. Further, as noticed above, the
failure of the appellant to have got the lease-cum-sale agreement
executed is to be construed as the appellant having deemed to
have declined the allotment.

25. The reliance placed by the appellant on the Judgment of a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Karnataka
Industrial Area Development Board, rept. by its Executive
4
Member v. Electromobiles (I) Ltd. would not aid the case of the
appellant, as the factual matrix in the said case is completely

4
2001 SCC Online Karnataka 839

- 21 -
WA No. 499 of 2024


different from the facts of the present case. In the said case, the
subject matter of challenge before the Division Bench was an order
passed by the learned Single Judge in the course of a winding up
proceedings. The allottee under the KIADB was a company which
was being wound up. The allottee had been allotted a property by
the KIADB and possession of a portion of the property was also
handed over. However, the allottee failed to implement the project
and hence, the KIADB cancelled the allotment. The official
liquidator, in the course of the winding up proceedings sought to
challenge the cancellation of the allotment which was granted by
the learned Single Judge. In the said facts, the Division Bench,
while adjudicating upon the nature of possession has clearly
noticed that neither the allotment letter, possession certificate nor
any other document to demonstrate the power of the KIADB to
cancel the allotment had been produced. In the said facts, this
Court held that the allottee had entered into possession lawfully
and has been in lawful possession of the land. Further, this Court
held that, even in the absence of the execution of lease-cum-sale
agreement since the allottee is in possession pursuant to the
possession certificate, the said possession is to be construed as
that of a lessee.

- 22 -
WA No. 499 of 2024


26. However, in the present case various documents i.e., letter of
allotment, possession certificate, etc., have been placed on record.
The terms and conditions of allotment are clear and forthcoming,
inasmuch as the appellant was required to execute the lease-cum-
sale agreement within 24 months from taking possession of the
plots. The consequence of not executing the lease-cum-sale
agreement is clearly stipulated in Regulation 10(d) of the
Regulations. The Regulations have also not been noticed in the
case of Electromobiles (I) Ltd. ( supra ). Hence, the said judgment
in the case of Electromobiles (I) Ltd. (supra) would not aid the
case of the appellant.

27. Reliance is also placed by the respondent - KIADB on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Industrial
Infrastructure Development Corporation v. Mesco Kalinga
5
Steel Ltd., & ors., . The relevant portion of which reads as under:

" 13. Aforesaid Condition No. 18 never came into force
and remained inoperative in the facts of the instant case
as lease deed itself had not been executed. Even
otherwise, more than three months' time was given to
Mesco to remedy the breach inasmuch as notice for
resumption was initially given in 1997 and for more than
5½ years till resumption in July 2003, breach was not
remedied. In spite of receiving the advance possession,
there was failure on the part of Mesco to execute the

5
(2017) 5 SCC 86

- 23 -
WA No. 499 of 2024


lease deed though draft lease deed was sent to it in
January 1996 for execution. The relationship of lessor
and lessee never came into being, in the absence of
execution of lease deed. The execution of lease deed
was necessary as the State Government had only
accorded in principle approval and advised IDCO to allot
the land that could only be done by execution of lease
deed. As a matter of fact, IDCO ought not to have
handed over advance possession of the land to Mesco
without execution of lease deed. However, for the
reasons best known to IDCO, advance possession was
given. The allotment letter itself contemplated the
execution of the lease deed as a condition precedent.
As provided in Section 33 of the Orissa Industrial
Infrastructure Development Corporation Act, 1980 (for
short “the Act”), the Corporation can dispose of the land
subject to directions given by the State Government in
such a manner and subject to such terms and
conditions as may be necessary. The condition
precedent was that of execution of lease deed, and as it
was so directed by the State Government also, in our
considered opinion, no concluded contract came into
being and the transaction became void due to failure on
the part of Mesco to execute a formal lease deed.
xxxx

17. IDCO is a statutory authority and it can act only on
the basis of written lease deed. The execution of lease
deed is necessary and it is in public interest to prevent
unauthorised leasing out of property on its behalf. Lease
is required to be executed in a prescribed format in the
shape of formal document which is sine qua non. In the
absence thereof, it would not be permissible to hold that
relationship of lessor and lessee came into being. A
situation arose under Section 175(3) of the Government
of India Act, 1935 a formal document was required to be
executed which provision was in pari materia with Article
299of the Constitution, this Court held in Bhikraj
Jaipuria v. Union of India [ Bhikraj Jaipuria v. Union of
India , AIR 1962 SC 113] that for a contract between
Government and private individuals, formal document is
necessary and where it is required that a thing shall be
done in the prescribed manner or form but does not set
out the consequences of non-compliance, the question
whether the provision was mandatory or directory has to
be judged in the light of the intention of the legislature

- 24 -
WA No. 499 of 2024

28. As noticed above, the appellant having been allotted with the
subject plot on 15.02.2013 and having been put in possession of
the same vide Possession Certificate dated 27.12.2014, till date
has not commenced the project. The allotment of the industrial plot
by the KIADB to the appellant was for the purpose of commencing
of the project and carrying out its business activities which has not
fructified despite passage of nearly a decade.
29. Further, although the KIADB has sent a draft of the lease
cum sale agreement vide its letter dated 23.03.2016, the same has
not yet been executed. The KIADB vide its letter dated 27.1.2018
has categorically communicated to the appellant that the changes
sought in the draft lease cum sale agreement cannot be
considered. Despite the same, the appellant has not taken any
tangible steps or measures so as to have the lease cum sale

- 25 -
WA No. 499 of 2024


agreement executed and to commence its business operations.
The KIADB after passage of nearly five years of the said letter
dated 27.1.2018, issued the impugned communication dated
20.12.2022 and cancelled the allotment.
30. As notice above, although the appellant had enquired with
the KIADB with regard to seeking for extension of time for
completion of the project, despite the KIADB communicating to the
appellant vide its letter dated 03/04.09.2018, to approach the
SLSWCC with a request to extend the time for completion of the
project, there is no material on record to indicate that the appellant
made such a request with the SLSWCC. The aforementioned
aspects clearly indicate that the appellant has been lax in
implementing the project in the subject plot.
31. In the facts of the present case, the contention of the
appellant that the impugned communication is bad for want of
issuance of notice as contemplated under Section 34-B of the KIAD
Act is not liable to be accepted as despite the KIADB
communicating to the appellant vide its letter dated 27.1.2018, that
the modifications sought for cannot be considered, the allotment
was cancelled nearly five years thereafter vide the impugned
communication dated 20.12.2022. It is clear that the present case

- 26 -
WA No. 499 of 2024


is not one where the appellant's allotment was suddenly, without
having an adequate opportunity of being notified as to the reason,
cancelled.
32. In view of the aforementioned, we find no infirmity with the
decision of the learned Single Judge in declining to interfere with
the impugned communication dated 20.12.2022.
33. Accordingly, the above appeal is dismissed as being devoid
of merit.


Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE



Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE



nd/ BS