- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR

WRIT PETITION NOs.442-443/2012 (GM-RES)

C/W.

WRIT PETITION NOs.432-436 & 437-441/2012(GM-RES)

IN W.P. NOs.442-443/2012

BETWEEN :

1. Sri Bhujanga ShettyS/o late Venkappa ShettyAged about 66 years

Sri Durga NivasBajpe Kateel Road

Bajpe,Mangalore Taluk-574142.

2. Sri Ullas R. ShettyS/o late Ramachandra ShettyAged about 42 years

“Yashoram”, AyyakkriSurathkal, Mangalore-14. ..Petitioners

(By Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty, Adv.,)

- 2 -

AND :

1. Deputy CommissionerDakshina Kannada

Mangalore.

2. Under Secretary toGovernment of Karnataka

Revenue Department(Rehabilitation)

M.S. BuildingDr.Ambedkar Veedhi

Bangalore-560 003.

3. State of KarnatakaBy its Secretary to theRevenue Department

M.S. BuildingDr. Ambedkar Veedhi

Bangalore-560 001.

4. Mangalore SEZ ProjectNo.16, Pranava Park

III Floor, Infantry RoadBangalore-560 001

Rep by itsManaging Director & CEO.

5. Damodhar ShettyS/o Boja Shetty

Age MajorR/a MSEZ Colony

Thokur VillageMangalore.

6. ShivanandaC/o Jayaram ShettyAge Major

- 3 -

R/a MSEZ, R & R ColonyKulai, Mangalore.

7. Sri Dinesh HS/o Honnaya PoojaryAge Major

R/a Shanthi NagarBajpe Post

Mangalore-574142.

8. Sri Kiran KumarS/o Madhava Poojari

Age MajorR/a Jatha Bettu

Thota house

Jokatte PostMangalore.

9. Sri KishoreS/o Ragu ShettyAge Major

R/a Annapoorneshwari HouseMSEZ, R & R Colony

Kodikere, KulaiMangalore.

10. Sri Sharath KumarS/o Thukaram PoojaryKodimar House

Hosamane, Kalavar Post

Mangalore-574142. ..Respondents

(By Sri K. Krishna, AGA., for R1 to R3;Sri P.D. Vishwanath, Adv., for R4;

Sri Sachin for M/s. DharmashreeAssociates, Adv., for R5 to R10)

- 4 -

These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and227 of the Constitution of India, praying to declare clause15.1 provision 1.0 and 4.1 of Annexure to the order dated2.12.2011 in No.RD 116 REH 2011 Bangalore videAnnexure-A as ultravires.

IN W.P. NOs.432-436 & 437-441/2012

BETWEEN :

1. Sri Dinesh ShettyS/o Shridhar ShettyAged about 35 years

Sri Krishna Dhama

Shivadurga CompoundMajila, Ullanje

Mennabettu, KinnigoliMangalore Taluk.

2. Sri Keshava N. PoojaryS/o Nonayya PoojaryAged about 43 years

‘Bramari Nilaya’Kodikeri, Kulai.

3. Reshma J. ShettyW/o Jagadish ShettyPatte Magandady House

Aged 31 years

Kudripadavu PostMangalore Taluk.

4. Vinod Victor PatraoAged 28 yearsS/o Marul Patro

“Ave Maria”, MRPL RRSEZ Colony, Near Permudu

- 5 -

Higher Primary SchoolMaindaguri, Kulai

Mangalore.

5. Sri Praveen S. ShettyS/o Subbayya Shetty

Aged about 36 yearsVenkateshwara Building

Opp. Ayyappa TempleK.R. Puram, Bangalore-36.

6. Sri ShaileshS/o Vajranabha KambliAged 19 years

Sri Satya Sai Sadana

Sankala Kariya, MundkoorPost, Karkala

Udupi District.

7. Kiran KumarS/o Ratnakar Shetty

Aged 25 years‘Sammbruddi’, Shiva Durga

Compound, Majila UllanjiMannabettu Grama Kimingoli

Mangalore Taluk.

8. Prajwal S. BangeraS/o Shankar Bangera

Aged 23 years

Sri nidhi Kanikatla RoadPermudu Post, Mangalore.

9. Bharathesh ShettyS/o Shekar ShettyAged 27 years

Kalpavriksha, Permudu PostMangalore.

- 6 -

10. Mohammed Nawaz S/o B.K. Hasanabba

Aged 30 years Kolakutya House

Jokatle RoadMangalore Taluk. ..Petitioners

(By Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty, Adv.,)

AND :

1. Deputy CommissionerDakshina KannadaMangalore.

2. Under Secretary toGovernment of Karnataka

Revenue Department(Rehabilitation)

M.S. BuildingDr.Ambedkar Veedhi

Bangalore-560 003.

3. State of KarnatakaBy its Secretary to the

Revenue DepartmentM.S. Building

Dr. Ambedkar VeedhiBangalore-560 001.

4. Mangalore SEZ ProjectNo.16, Pranava Park

III Floor, Infantry RoadBangalore-560 001

Rep by itsManaging Director & CEO.

- 7 -

5. Sri Damodhar ShettyS/o Boja Shetty

Age MajorR/a MSEZ Colony

Thokur VillageMangalore.

6. Sri ThejeshS/o Ragava PoojaryAge Major

R/a Shiva SanidhyaMSEZ Colony

Kalavar Post & VillageMangalore.

7. ShivanandaC/o Jayaram Shetty

Age MajorR/a MSEZ, R & R Colony

Kulai, Mangalore.

8. Sri Niranjan Nandan KumarS/o Sadhashiva Poojary

R/a Dota HousePorkody Post & Village

Mangalore.

9. Sri ChittaranjanAge Major

R/a Sanjivini Nilaya

Tayar BettuMNabjuru

SrinivasanagarMangalore.

10. Sri Ramesh

S/o Nonayya Suvadna Age Major

- 8 -

R/a Gorimar House Bajape, Mangalore.

11. Sri Deepak Kumar

C/o Baba Poojary Age Major

R/a Bajpe Village & Post Mangalore.

12. Sri Girisha

S/o Laxman Bangera Age Major

R/a MSEZ Colony Kalavar Post & Village

Mangalore-574142.

13. Sri Dinesh H

S/o Honnaya PoojaryAge Major

R/a Shanthi NagarBajpe Post

Mangalore-574142.

14. Sri Kotian Nitin Ramnath S/o Ramnath N. Kotian

Site No.F-01, Skanda House Moodabettu, Kulai

Mangalore.

15. Sri Kiran Kumar

S/o Madhava Poojari Age Major

R/a Jatha Bettu Thota house

Jokatte Post Mangalore.

- 9 -

16. Sri Chandrashekar K S/o Dasappa Acharya

Aged Major R/a Kalavar, Kaikamba

MSEZ Colony, Kalakar Mangalore. ..Respondents

(By Sri K. Krishna, AGA., for R1 to R3;

Sri P.D. Vishwanath, Adv., for R4;Sri Sachin for M/s. Dharmashree

Associates, Adv., for R5 to R10)

These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the clause4.1 of the Annexure to the Government order dated2.12.2011 in No.RD 116 REH 2011 Bangalore videAnnexure-A to the extent it gives priority for the KPT trainedcandidates in each category of PDF nominees in jobsprovided by MRPL, OMPL, ISPRL.

These writ petitions coming on for preliminary hearingin ‘B’ group, this day the Court made the following:-

O R D E R

Petitioners in WP.Nos.442-443/2012 seek

quashing of Clause 15.1 of the Government Order

bearing No.RD.116.REH.2011, dated 2.12.2011 vide

Annexure-A and for declaration that the said clause is

ultra vires of the policy framed by the State

- 10 -

Government for rehabilitation of the displaced

persons.

2. WP.Nos.432-436 & 437-441/2012 are filed

praying for quashing Clause 4.1 of the Government

Order dated 2.12.2011 (vide Annexure-A) to the

extent it gives priority for KPT trained candidates in

each category of Project Displaced Family nominees in

jobs provided by MRPL, OMPL, ISPRL.

3. The records reveal that the State Government

has framed the policy as per Annexure-B dated

20.6.2007 for providing rehabilitation of the displaced

persons in respect of Mangalore Special Economic

Zone. The said policy is amended from time to time

including the one of 2.12.2011 as per Annexure-A.

Under the rehabilitation policy at Annexure-B, a Multi

Member Committee is formed as is clear from Clause

20 of the Scheme. The said Clause reveals that the

- 11 -

Committee is formed under the Chairmanship of the

Deputy Commissioner, having representatives of

KIADB, Land Requiring Authority, MRPL, concerned

District Officers and the representatives of the Project

Displaced Families. According to the petitioners, they

are also the members of the Rehabilitation

Committee. When the work of rehabilitation is going

on, the impugned order dated 2.12.2011 vide

Annexure-A is issued by the State Government

making certain amendments to the

policy/Rehabilitation Scheme. The said amendment

was to Clause 15 of the original Scheme. The relevant

portion of the amendment is found in Clause 15.1 and

the same reads thus:-

“15.1 The Deputy Commissioner,

Dakshina Kannada District is empowered as

the authority for implementation of the

employment process including absorption

- 12 -

plan, timelines Methodology etc., as

detailed in the Annexure, appended to this

Government Order.”

From the said amendment, it is clear that the

Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District is

the sole authority empowered to implement the

employment process, including the absorption plan,

timelines methodology, etc. The petitioners being the

members of the Rehabilitation Committee contend

that such amendment brought by the State

Government is erroneous, inasmuch as the same runs

contrary to the main Rehabilitation Scheme, dated

20.6.2007. According to the petitioners, it is not open

for the State Government to entrust the

implementation of the employment process only to the

Deputy Commissioner of the District and it should

- 13 -

have been retained with the Rehabilitation Committee

framed under Clause 20 of the Scheme.

4. Before passing the impugned order at

Annexure-A, a meeting was conducted on 13.6.2011

(as is clear from Annexure-A itself) under the

Chairmanship of Hon’ble Minister for Ports, Inland

Water Transport, Fisheries, Ecology and Environment

and District In-charge Minister with the

representatives of the Project Displaced Families and

the representatives from MRPL, OMPL, ISPRI, MSEZI,

Deputy Commissioner of Dakshina Kannada District

and other State Government Officers. In the said

meeting, the demands of the Project Displaced

Families for providing employment or employment

after training was discussed at length. The

suggestions offered by the representatives of Project

Displaced Families along with representatives of

- 14 -

OMPL, ISPRL, MSEZL and MRPL were considered.

Thereafter it was decided that a definite commitment

from MSEZL and other Units is required in respect of

providing employment to the members of the Project

Displaced Families in proportion to the land allotted to

each individual unit. In the said meeting, it was

further decided that the Deputy Commissioner,

Dakshina Kannada District shall be entrusted with the

responsibility of implementation of the employment

process with the specific direction that he shall

oversee and finalize the absorption numbers of

employment and also the criteria for selection process

by the respective companies. Thus, it is clear that the

impugned order is passed amending Clause 15 of the

Scheme after consultation with the Project Displaced

Families and the representatives of employer

companies including the Government Officers. Thus,

it cannot be said that the State Government has taken

- 15 -

unilateral decision. Entrustment of the work of the

implementation of the employment process to the

Deputy Commissioner merely amounts to entrustment

of one of the work of the Rehabilitation Committee.

This Court does not find any error in entrusting such

matter to the Deputy Commissioner, particularly when

the said decision is taken by the State Government

after consultation with the Project Displaced Families

and the employers. Merely because the petitioners

are the members of Rehabilitation Committee, they

cannot expect the State Government to hear them

also while amending the policy/rehabilitation Scheme.

Ultimately, it is for the State Government to amend

Scheme depending upon the need of affected people.

The State Government is the best authority to frame

its Scheme. Unless and until the Scheme is arbitrary

and irrational, such Scheme of the State Government

will not be interfered with by this Court.

- 16 -

5. The entrustment of the work relating to the

implementation of employment process to the Deputy

Commissioner might have been done with the object

of implementation of the project speedier. The Deputy

Commissioner is an independent State Government

Authority and no motive can be attached to such an

authority. If at all anybody is aggrieved by the

inaction or overaction on the part of the Deputy

Commissioner, it is open for such aggrieved party to

take recourse to law to get such defects rectified. The

petitioners are stated to be only the members of the

Rehabilitation Committee. If at all there should be

any grievance, it should be for the Project Displaced

Families inasmuch as they are affected persons in the

matter. Since the representatives of the Project

Displaced Families have themselves agreed for

empowering the Deputy Commissioner for

implementation of the employment process, including

- 17 -

the absorption, etc., this Court does not find any

ground to interfere with the impugned order.

More over, mere making out a legal point may

not be sufficient ground for this Court to interfere with

the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner,

particularly relating to policy matters, if such policy is

neither arbitrary, irrational or violative of provisions of

Constitution of India. Therefore, writ petitions are

liable to be dismissed.

6. So also this Court does not find any ground

to interfere with the impugned order in WP.No.432-

436 & 437-441/2012.

Under Clause 4.1 of the impugned order at

Annexure-A, dated 2.12.2011, the methodology is

prescribed for selection of the persons who are to be

- 18 -

employed in different categories. The said Clause

reads thus:-

“4.1- The current units viz., MRPL, OMPL,

ISPRL would provide employment to the

no. of PDF’s to be absorbed by each of

them, based on their (PDF’s) qualification

and will not insist to appear for selection

test. DC, D.K.Dist., Mangalore would

finalize the list of PDF nominees in different

categories to be provided jobs by MRPL,

OMPL, ISPRL, with KPT trained PDF

nominees to get first priority in each

category.”

From the aforementioned amended Clause, it is

clear that MRPL, OMPL, ISPRL Committee will provide

employment to the Project Displaced Family nominees

based on their qualification and they will not insist the

candidates to appear for selection test. However,

under the said Clause the Deputy Commissioner is

- 19 -

directed to finalize the list of Project Displaced Family

trained nominees in different categories to be

provided jobs. Such trained candidates will get first

priority in the employment. This Court does not find

any unreasonableness in the said condition. On the

other hand, such a condition is perfectly reasonable

and in accordance with law. The companies are not

expected to absorb the persons who are untrained.

The aforesaid Clause states that the trained persons

will get first priority. If such trained candidates are

not available, the untrained candidates also may be

provided with jobs. Such training will be given by the

Deputy Commissioner free of cost depending on the

interest of the candidates. If a particular candidate is

interested in particular job, training will be conducted

only in such avocation.

- 20 -

In the original policy of 20.6.2007 itself (Clause

15), it is clearly mentioned that the persons aged

between 18 to 25 years coming from the Project

Displaced Families would be given job training

depending on their educational qualification. It is

needless to observe that such training will be given

with free of cost by the State Government. Clause 16

of the original policy also makes it clear that in case if

anybody does not want the employment, they would

be given amount of Rs.3.50 lakhs in lieu of

employment. Thus, the amended policy is perfectly in

consonance with the original policy and it does not

contravene the original policy at all. On the other

hand, it helps to implement the original policy

effectively.

In view of the above, the writ petitions are liable

to be dismissed.

- 21 -

Accordingly all the writ petitions stand

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

*ck/nk-