ORDER : (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.) 1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs : i. To issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing No. 7023 before the CEO and EM, KIADB, Bengaluru dated 18.3.2022 (Annexure-S) passed by the R1; ii. Consequently direct the R1 to refund the sum of Rs. 100 lakhs (Rs. 50 lakhs per Acre) collected in excess of the actual cost of 2 Acres of land and to pay interest @ 12.5% p.a. on the said sum of Rs. 100 lakhs from 03.05.2016 (date of Lease Deed) until the actual date of payment within a period of 30 days or such other time period as may be determined by this Hon’ble Court. iii. Award costs of these proceedings; and iv. Issue any other appropriate writ, order or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The Petitioner claims to be a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and involved in the business of making cold forged and machined components for automobile and aerospace industries. The Petitioner applied to the 1st respondent - Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as KIADB), for allotment of 2 acres of land in Jakksandra Industrial Area, Malur, Kola District (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘JIA’). 3. KIADB allotted 8,000 square metres of land on 16-04-2016 to the Petitioner in Plots No.47 and 48 of JIA. The Petitioner availed of a loan by way of a term loan and cash credit facility of Rs.620 lakhs/- on the basis of the security provided by the promoter directors and family members from the Bank of India, HSR Layout, Bangalore (hereinafter, for brevity, referred to as ‘BOI’). 4. The total cost of allotment on a 99-years lease was stated to be Rs.276/- lakhs at the rate of Rs.138/- lakhs per acre. The Petitioner set up the industry within seven months of the date of allotment and started its commercial production on 8-11-2016 and, as such, complied with all the conditions imposed by KIADB. 4. The total cost of allotment on a 99-years lease was stated to be Rs.276/- lakhs at the rate of Rs.138/- lakhs per acre. The Petitioner set up the industry within seven months of the date of allotment and started its commercial production on 8-11-2016 and, as such, complied with all the conditions imposed by KIADB. In the year 2017, the KIADB pursuant to Order No.CI-105-SPI-2017 of the Government of Karnataka dated 11-7-2017 changed the conditions of allotment, now allotting the land on a lease-cum- sale basis for a period of 10 years for up to 2 acres of land and as such, the KIADB executed a rectification deed on 22-11-2018, reducing the 99- years lease to 10-years lease-cum-sale basis. In furtherance of the policy of the Government to promote the growth of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises. 5. The Petitioner made a representation on 27-4-2017 to the District Industries Centre, Kolar, (hereinafter referred to as DIC), seeking for refund of excess amount collected by the KIADB since the lease has now been reduced from 99 years to 10 years, which was taken up by the District-level Kaigarika Spandana meeting, under the chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, on 23-9-2017. The Joint Director, District Industries Centre, Kolar forwarded the said request. The Joint Director and Deputy Commissioner were of the opinion that the said request has to be considered in terms of Special Development Program introduced by the Industries and Commerce Department. 6. The Petitioner claiming that it had set up the industry in the border area of the State of Karnataka at a high capital, and the Petitioner not in a position to achieve break-even claimed that the Petitioner had suffered a loss of Rs.1,19,09,468/- for the financial year 2017- 18 and for the financial year 2018-19, the losses suffered was to the extent of Rs.67,96,622/-. The Petitioner's Managing Director, having provided a loan of Rs.6.3 crores to the Petitioner, had indicated that the Petitioner had suffered huge financial losses. The Petitioner, having learnt that other allotment in the JIA was being made at the rate of Rs.88/- lakhs per acre, had made an application with the KIADB under the Right to Information Act, (hereinafter referred to as ‘RTI’, for brevity), seeking for information as regards the determination of the price of land and the price at which the allotment was made, method of calculation, etc. 7. 7. The Petitioner contends that on receipt of the information in pursuance of the RTI application, the minutes of the meeting revealed that the KIADB itself had categorically come to a conclusion that the method of calculation of land cost adopted by KIADB was on the higher side, and there was a decision taken to bring the said cost down rationally, without compromising the interest of KIADB, by offering the land at an affordable rate, the price fixation by the KIADB being at higher value, there are a lot of plots which are lying vacant without allotment. The total land in JIA was 627.45 acres. The estimated development cost was Rs.10,838.78 lakhs. However, the actual cost finalised and the work order issued was only for Rs.4,961.62 lakhs, and it is in that background that the cost of allotment of land per acre was determined to be Rs.84.12 lakhs, which included the cost of infrastructure, internal water lines and roads, but excluded the cost of independent water supply scheme. 8. The Petitioner claims to have come to know that two other allottees, namely M/s.Deerfield Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (for short, ‘Deerfield’) and M/s.A.S.Global Logistics and Warehousing Services Pvt. Ltd. (for short, ‘A.S.Global’) had been allotted land in JIA at Rs.88/- lakhs per acre, which benefits ought to be extended to the Petitioner also. The revision of cost from Rs.138/- lakhs per acre to Rs.88/- lakhs per acre ought to enure to the benefit of the Petitioner and as such, the Petitioner took up the matter with the KIADB and submitted various representations to KIADB, Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Commissioner, Industries and Commerce Department, as also to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Government of Karnataka, on 9-9-2019 and 5-2-2019 at Annexures-K, L, M, N, P and Q respectively, which did not yield any suitable result. 9. The Petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP No.4134/2020, seeking for a mandamus directing KIADB to refund the excess amount collected. This Court, vide it was order dated 3-2-2022, disposed of the said Writ Petition with a direction to 1 st Respondent to consider the representation dated 9- 9-2019. It is pursuant thereto that 1 st Respondent rejected the representation of the Petitioner by its order dated 18-3-2022. This Court, vide it was order dated 3-2-2022, disposed of the said Writ Petition with a direction to 1 st Respondent to consider the representation dated 9- 9-2019. It is pursuant thereto that 1 st Respondent rejected the representation of the Petitioner by its order dated 18-3-2022. It is challenging the said rejection that the Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs, firstly, seeking for quashing of the said rejection order by the KIADB and secondly, for a direction to KIADB to refund the excess amount collected, etc. 10. Shri K. V. Satish, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, would submit that: 10.1. The allotment letter issued in favour of the Petitioner was on 30-3-2016 on a lease basis for a period of 99 years at the rate of Rs.138/- lakhs per acre, out of which, the entire amount has been paid by the Petitioner on 6-4-2016 and thereafter, a lease deed has been executed in favour of the Petitioner on 11-5-2016 for a period of 99 years. The Petitioner, thereafter having established the manufacturing unit, the KIADB revised its policy of a 99-years lease to a 10-years lease-cum-sale basis. 10.2. Initially a lease-cum-sale to be executed for a period of 10 years, and on the allottee complying with the requirements and or condition of lease-cum-sale deed, the said lease-cum-sale would be converted into a sale deed, with the sale deed being executed in favour of allottee. 10.3. Before the said policy could be implemented, the Petitioner approached the KIADB, indicating the losses which had been suffered by the Petitioner and for consideration of the said losses to reduce the cost of allotment. Subsequently, the Petitioner came to know that the cost of allotment had been reduced in the 339 th meeting held on 5-4-2016 and the reduction of the said cost applied to JIA, which had been confirmed in the meeting of the board dated 4-6-2016 in the 340 th board meeting. The cost having been reduced from Rs.138/- lakhs to Rs.88/- lakhs. 10.4. The Petitioner had made a representation for refund of the excess cost by taking into consideration the allotment to the Petitioner also at Rs.88/- lakhs. His submission is that the allotment had been made in favour of the Petitioner on 30-3-2016, and the Board, in its meeting held on 5-4-2016, that is, within one week thereafter, has reduced the cost. The Petitioner had made a representation for refund of the excess cost by taking into consideration the allotment to the Petitioner also at Rs.88/- lakhs. His submission is that the allotment had been made in favour of the Petitioner on 30-3-2016, and the Board, in its meeting held on 5-4-2016, that is, within one week thereafter, has reduced the cost. This has been approved in the meeting held on 4-6- 2016. 10.5. Merely because the allotment was made in favour of the Petitioner one week earlier to such board meeting, the Petitioner cannot be made to suffer, and certain others be provided the benefit of change rates. The Petitioner being an MSME, is required to be provided the same benefit as the other allottees. His submission is also that two other allottees, namely Deerfield and A.S.Global have been allotted the land at the rate of Rs.88/- lakhs per acre in JIA. Their applications also being made around the same time as that done by the Petitioner. There is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution by treating those two entities differently than that of the Petitioner. 10.6. In this regard, he relies upon the lease deed executed in favour of Deerfield on 21-07-2016 when it has been categorically stated that the allotment was made vide allotment letter dated 19-11-2015 and possession certificate dated 15-04-2016 had been issued. Deerfield having been allotted 64 acres in JIA on 19-11-2015, a lease-cum-sale agreement having been executed for a sum of Rs.88/- lakhs on 21-07-2016, the Petitioner also should be provided similar benefit. 10.7. He relies upon the lease deed dated 30-3-2017 executed in favour of A.S.Global, which indicated that the allotment letter in favour of A.S.Global was issued on 26-06-2015, Possession certificate was issued on 4-3-2016 and lease deed was executed on 30-3-2017 at the rate of Rs.88/- lakhs per acre. He therefore submits that the benefit which has been extended to A.S.Global should be extended to the Petitioner also. 10.8. The Petitioner also filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to place on record certain further documents. 10.9. Shri K. V. Satish, relying on the same, submits that in the 332 nd Board meeting, held on 24-11-2014, the norms for allotment rate of single unit complexes, bulk allotment and smaller plots of the industrial area developed by KIADB have been approved. 10.9. Shri K. V. Satish, relying on the same, submits that in the 332 nd Board meeting, held on 24-11-2014, the norms for allotment rate of single unit complexes, bulk allotment and smaller plots of the industrial area developed by KIADB have been approved. Insofar as JIA is concerned, the allotment rate was fixed at Rs.138/- lakhs per acre for all general allottees, single unit complexes and bulk allottees over 50 acres. Thus, the rate which had been fixed at Rs.138/- lakhs per acre was for everyone and not to MSMEs alone. This rate was reduced from Rs.145.50 lakhs. He therefore submits that whether land has been allotted to a large industry like Deerfield or A.S.Global and whether bulk allotment has been made to them or not, there cannot be discrimination between Deerfield and A.S.Global on the one hand and the Petitioner on the other. The Petitioner is also required to be given the benefit of the reduction in the cost to Rs.88/- lakhs. 11. Shri K. Shashikiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for KIADB, would submit that: 11.1. The Writ Petition is not maintainable since the matter touches upon contractual obligations between the parties. The Petitioner, having accepted the allotment at Rs.138/- lakhs per acre, cannot thereafter seek for reduction in the same on account of losses which have been suffered by the Petitioner or otherwise. The allotment which has been made to Deerfield and A.S.Global is on account of bulk allotment. Deerfield, having been allotted 64 acres, there is a reduced price. The reduction in the price subsequent to the allotment made in favour of the Petitioner would not inure to the benefit of the Petitioner. The KIADB, in its 338 th meeting held on 19-12-2015, had made a bulk allotment of 64 acres to Deerfield and 25 acres to A.S.Global at a concessional allotment price of Rs.88/- lakhs to encourage both of them to set up business in JIA. The Petitioner, having been allotted two acres of land, cannot claim to be situated in a similar position. 11.2. Clause 5.20 of the Industrial Policy 2014-19 provides for special packages of incentives/concessions in deserving cases, which includes industries dealing with logistics like that dealt with by Deerfield and A.S.Global. The Petitioner, having been allotted two acres of land, cannot claim to be situated in a similar position. 11.2. Clause 5.20 of the Industrial Policy 2014-19 provides for special packages of incentives/concessions in deserving cases, which includes industries dealing with logistics like that dealt with by Deerfield and A.S.Global. The business that Deerfield and A.S.Global are involved in requires huge capital investment and provides large-scale employment, and it is for that reason that they were allotted land at the rate of Rs.88/- lakhs per acre. The said benefit being extended to Deerfield and A.S.Global on the basis of the criteria met by them will not be applicable to the Petitioner. The decision taken in the meeting on 4-5-2016, confirmed in the meeting on 4-6-2016, is prospective in nature. Any allotment made prior to 4-5-2016 cannot have the benefit of a lower rate. 11.3. In the present case, the Petitioner was allotted the land on 30-3-2016, which was much earlier, and therefore the Petitioner would not be entitled for any reduced rate. There is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution between Deerfield and A.S.Global on the one hand and the Petitioner on the other. Since the benefit which has been extended to Deerfield and A.S.Global is on account of their being involved in Logistics industries where incentives could be provided. He, therefore, submits that the policy decision which has been taken in favour of Deerfield and A.S.Global cannot enure to the benefit of the Petitioner. The Petitioner, having received the allotment letter and having paid the allotment cost, cannot, because he has suffered a loss, seek for reduction in the cost of allotment. His submission is also that if the cost of allotment, in favour of the Petitioner were to be reduced, the reduction in cost being prospective would in fact become retrospective, thereby opening the floodgates for other allottees to seek for reduction in the cost. Merely because cost is reduced for future allotment would not provide any right to the Petitioner to seek for reduced cost at a later date. On the above grounds, he submits that the petition is required to be dismissed. 12. Heard, Sri.K.V.Satish, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Sri.K.Shashikiran Shetty, learned Senior counsel appearing for the KIADB and perused papers. 13. On the above grounds, he submits that the petition is required to be dismissed. 12. Heard, Sri.K.V.Satish, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Sri.K.Shashikiran Shetty, learned Senior counsel appearing for the KIADB and perused papers. 13. The points that would arise for determination are: 1) Whether on a change made in the allotment cost, could a person who has been allotted land at a higher rate seek for a reduced rate on such change in the allotment price? 2) Whether there is any discrimination in the present case between Deerfield and A.S.Global on the one hand and the Petitioner on the other? 3) Whether the relief sought for by the Petitioner can be granted? 4) What order? 14. I answer the above points as under: 15. Answer to Point No.1: Whether on a change made in the allotment cost, could a person who has been allotted land at a higher rate seek for a reduced rate on such change in the allotment price? 15.1. The dates and events are not in dispute. It is clear that the Petitioner was allotted the land on 30-3-2016, the Possession letter was issued on 16-4-2016, and revision of the land rates, though proposed on 5-4-2016, was accepted on 4-6-2016. The rate of allotment is also not in dispute inasmuch as on 30-3-2016 and 16-4- 2016, it was Rs.138/- lakhs per acre. On and from 4-6-2016, it had been reduced to Rs.88/- lakhs per acre. 15.2. The submission of Shri.K.V.Satish, is that though allotment was made made in favour of the Petitioner on 30-3-2016 at Rs.138/- lakhs, the allotment rate having been reduced on 4-6- 2016 to Rs.88/- lakhs in pursuance of the recommendation made on 5-4-2016, the Petitioner who has allotted the land one week before the recommendation ought to be held to be entitled for lower rates. 15.3. At first blush, the submission of Sri K. V. Satish, learned counsel, appears equitable inasmuch as the Petitioner was allotted land on 30-3-2016 for Rs.138/- lakhs, and the KIADB reduced the allotment rate to Rs.88/- lakhs on 4-6-2016 in pursuance of a recommendation made on 5-4-2016. The recommendation was made within one week of the allotment to the Petitioner. However, this aspect must be tested in another scenario: instead of a reduction in the allotment rate, what would be the situation if the allotment rate were increased? The recommendation was made within one week of the allotment to the Petitioner. However, this aspect must be tested in another scenario: instead of a reduction in the allotment rate, what would be the situation if the allotment rate were increased? Could the allottee be directed to pay the increased allotment rate? That is to say, if the allotment rate as of 30-3-2016 was Rs.88/- lakhs and was recommended to be increased to Rs.138/- lakhs on 5-4-2016 and accepted on 4-6-2016, could an allottee who had been allotted the land at Rs.88/- lakhs be required to pay Rs.138/- lakhs due to a subsequent revision? The answer in such a situation would be an emphatic no. The allottee would be entitled to the allotment at Rs.88/- lakhs, and no increase could be demanded from the allottee. 15.4. There is substance in the submission made by Sri. Shashikiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel for the KIADB, that the KIADB has considered the allotment rates to be reduced only prospectively, since if it was to be done retrospectively, it would have a domino effect on all the allotments requiring the reduction for all the allottees and if that were to be the case, the reduction would not have been made to Rs.88/- lakhs but would have been made to a higher figure. The submission made by learned senior counsel is both logical and reasonable inasmuch as while reducing the cost of allotment for future allotments to Rs.88/- lakhs, the KIADB has not considered the refund to be made to allottees who have already been allotted the lands at higher cost. This aspect is absent in the consideration and the deliberations in the 339 th and 340 th meetings, which have been produced by the Petitioner. 15.5. The cascading effect of refund of monies to allottees who have already been allotted at the rate of Rs.138/- lakhs per acre would have definitely been considered by the Board if such a refund was under contemplation and details thereof would have been placed on record, deliberated upon and accepted by the Board. What the Board has done in the 339 th and 340 th meeting is only reduce the cost of allotments for future allotments, and there has been no consideration or a decision taken as regards reducing the allotment rate for allotments already having been made and or refund of excess amount. 15.6. What the Board has done in the 339 th and 340 th meeting is only reduce the cost of allotments for future allotments, and there has been no consideration or a decision taken as regards reducing the allotment rate for allotments already having been made and or refund of excess amount. 15.6. The fixation of price is a policy decision to be taken by the State and or its entities, as regards which this Court cannot intervene. It is only the decision-making process of such price fixation which could be subject to judicial review and not the price fixed as such. The decision-making process for the 339 th and 340 th meeting not having taken into consideration the refund if any to be made to allotments made earlier at the rate of Rs.138/- lakhs per acre, I am of the considered opinion that the said policy decision can only be said to be prospective and not retrospective, though only by one week, entitling the Petitioner for the benefit of the reduced cost. 15.7. Hence, I answer Point No.1 by holding that on a change made in the allotment cost, a person who has been allotted land at a higher rate cannot seek for a reduced rate on such change in the allotment price. 16. Answer to Point No.2 : Whether there is any discrimination in the present case between Deerfield and A.S.Global on the one hand and the Petitioner on the other? 16.1. Much has been argued by Sri.K.V.Satish, learned counsel for the Petitioner that there is a discrimination between Deerfield and A.S.Global on the one hand and the Petitioner on the other hand inasmuch as, the allotments have been made to them earlier than that in favour of the Petitioner, they have been allotted land at a reduced price than that compared to the Petitioner. 16.2. It is not in dispute that as on the date on which the allotment was made to the Petitioner, the value of allotment was Rs.138/- lakhs per acre, which was recommended to be reduced to Rs.88/- lakhs, in the 339 th meeting held on 5-4-2016 and accepted in the 340 th meeting held on 4-6-2016. 16.2. It is not in dispute that as on the date on which the allotment was made to the Petitioner, the value of allotment was Rs.138/- lakhs per acre, which was recommended to be reduced to Rs.88/- lakhs, in the 339 th meeting held on 5-4-2016 and accepted in the 340 th meeting held on 4-6-2016. Though the allotment made in favour of Deerfield, was on 19-11-2015, Possession Certificate had been issued on 15-4-2016 and the allotment in favour of A.S.Global having been made on 26-6-2015 with possession letter having been issued on 4-3-2016, the fact remains that those two companies being involved in logistics business would be entitled to the benefits of Clause 5.20 of the Industrial Policy 2014-19 where incentives are provided and concessions could be made available for companies dealing in logistic facilities to support other industries. 16.3. The other submission made by Shri K. Shashikiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel is that both Deerfield and A.S.Global were allotted land on bulk allotment basis. This is countered by Shri K. V. Satish by contending that for a bulk allotment the land allotted should be in excess of 50 acres. Though the allotment made in favour of Deerfield of 64 acres is in excess of 50 acres, the allotment made in favour of A.S. Global being 25 acres is less than the requirement of 50 acres for bulk allotment. 16.4. Apart from the aspect of bulk allotment, what is pleaded and argued by and on behalf of the KIADB is that it is a special package which has been made available in terms of Clause 5.20 of the Industrial Policy 2014-19. The reasons for such special incentives for logistic facilities is not too far to see inasmuch as these logistic companies would be supporting the industries established in the particular industrial area and also would be providing for large scale employment which is the prerogative of the State to encourage. 16.5. That is when incentives are provided in terms of Clause 5.20 of the Special Package and Industrial Policy 2014-19, the Petitioner, who is not involved in the business of such logistics and has only been allotted two acres of land, cannot claim the same benefit as has been provided to Deerfield and AS Global who are involved in logistics facilities. 16.6. 16.6. The Petitioner, on the one hand, Deerfield and AS Global, on the other hand, do not stand on the same footing and are not equals, requiring Article 14 to be applied. In fact, both of them stand on a different footing, and therefore, they cannot be treated similarly or identically. 16.7. Thus, I answer Point No.2 by holding that there is no discrimination as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner made between Deerfield and A.S.Global on the one hand and the Petitioner on the other while allotting the land and fixing the rates. 17. Answer to Point No.3: Whether the relief sought for by the Petitioner can be granted? 17.1. In view of my answers to Points No.1 and 2, it is clear that there is no discrimination of the Petitioner on the one hand and Deerfield and A.S. Logistics on the other. The allotment rate made available to Deerfield and A.S.Global is on account of Clause 5.20 of the special package of incentives of the Industrial Policy 2014-19. The Petitioner has claimed reduction not only on the ground of the allotment rate in favour of Deerfield and AS Global but also on the ground that the Petitioner has suffered losses. 17.2. Suffering of losses cannot be a ground for reduction in the allotment rate. The allotment rate has been the same for all allottees in JIA. Apart from the allotment made in favour of Deerfield and AS Global, the Petitioner has not placed anything on record indicating that there is any other allotment made, at the rate of Rs.88/- lakhs contemporaneous to that made in favour of the Petitioner or earlier. There is nothing which has been placed on record by the Petitioner indicating the KIADB having refunded any excess amount to any other allotee who had been allotted land prior to that of the Petitioner. Thus, the only conclusion that can be drawn by this Court is that the change in the policy, the change in the allotment rate being prospective in nature, all allottees prior to the change in the policy are treated equally and Rs.138/- lakhs has been collected per acre for the allotment made to each of those allottees. 17.3. Thus, the order passed by the 1 st respondent cannot be faulted with. 17.3. Thus, the order passed by the 1 st respondent cannot be faulted with. If that be so, the question of directing the 1 st respondent to refund any amount to the Petitioner would not arise thereby meaning that none of the reliefs which have been claimed in the present petition can be granted in favour of the Petitioner. 18. Answer to Point No.4: What order? 18.1. In view of my answers to Points No.1, 2 and 3, no grounds being made out, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.