Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2025 18:29:17 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.1087 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Abhirav Industries Pvt. Ltd. …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha and Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Mr. Saswat Kumar Acharya, Adv. Miss Gayatri Patra, ASC Mr. Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, Sr. Adv. along with associates Miss K.T. Mudali, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-11.04.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-16.05.2025 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. The present Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner challenging the letter dated 18.10.2024 which allegedly reflects the inaction of the Opp. Party No.3 in not making allotment of land in favour of the Petitioner. Page 1 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2025 18:29:17 I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE 2. The facts as canvassed by the Petitioner and the circumstances leading to the filing of the present writ petition which are germane to deciding the lis at hand are as follows — i. The Opp. Party No. 1 vide Resolution No. 12300/1 dated 30.11.2022 published the Industrial Policy Resolution 2022 ("IPR-2022") for promotion and investment in Industrial Infrastructure in the State of Odisha. ii. Thereafter, the Petitioner on 22.05.2023 wrote to Tahasildar, Koira, Dist. Sundargarh, Odisha requesting him to provide field verification report of the land schedule at Bhanjapali Mouza alongwith other necessary documents. iii. The Tahasildar, on 23.05.2023, through Letter No. 1040 submitted the Verification Land Schedule of Village Bhanjapali after due authentication as per ROR. iv. After due diligence, the Petitioner on 02.06.2023 submitted a proposal to the Opp. Party No.2 through GOSWIFT portal vide Proposal No.2023065274. v. Thereafter, the Opp. Party No. 2 vide email dated 19.06.2023 raised an objection to the proposal submitted by the Petitioner stating that the Net worth of Petitioner is insufficient to match the equity requirements. vi. Pursuant to the letter dated 19.06.2023, the Petitioner vide letter dated 10.07.2023 replied to the Opp. Party No. 2 by Page 2 of 18
Legal Reasoning
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2025 18:29:17 submitting the detailed financial analysis of the project including revised project estimate cost and project highlights along with summary statement. vii. The Petitioner on 19.07.2023 wrote to the Opp. Party No.2 apprising it of the equity participation of Mrs. Santosh Devi Agrawal for the purpose of the present project. viii. Thereafter, in the 244th meeting of the State Level Facilitation Cell (hereinafter referred to as "SLFC") on 11.08.2023, SLFC recommended the proposal submitted by the Petitioner to the State Level Single Window Clearnce Authority (hereinafter referred to as “SLSWCA”). ix. The Opp. Party No.2 vide letter dated 4.11.2023 intimated the Petitioner that the proposal submitted by the Petitioner for setting up 1.2 MTPA Iron Ore Beneficiation Plant and 0.8 MTPA Pellet Plant at Village- Bhanjapali, Tahasil- Koida, Dist.- Sundargarh has been approved in principle by the SLSWCA in its 123rd meeting held on 31.10.2023. x. The Petitioner vide letter dated 6.11.2023 wrote to Opp. Party No. 2 submitting the details of land and water requirement for the proposed project. xi. The Petitioner received an email dated 13.11.2024 from Opp. Party No. 2 for submission of plan layout for the proposed project. Page 3 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2025 18:29:17 xii. The Petitioner vide letter dated 15.11.2023 submitted the general proposed plan layout with index for the proposed project to the Opp. Party No. 2. xiii. The Opp. Party No.2 vide letter dated 2.12.2023 recommended to the Opp. Party No.4 for allotting 56 Acres of land to the Petitioner Company for setting up of 1.20 MTPA Iron Ore Beneficiation Plant and 0.8 MTPA Pellet Plant at Village- Bhanjapali, Tehsil- Koida, Dist.- Sundargarh, which has been duly approved in the 123rd meeting of SLSWCA held on 31.10.2023 and in the 249th meeting of SLFC held on 28.11.2023. xiv. The Petitioner on 7.12.2023 wrote to Opp. Party No.4 for allotment/alienation of the proposed land as per letter dated 02.12.2023 issued by Opp. Party No.2. xv. The Opp. Party No. 5 vide letter dated 13.12.2023 wrote to the Petitioner for providing the necessary documents for filing acquisition and lease proposal along with the processing fee. xvi. In furtherance to the letter dated 13.12.2023 the Petitioner vide letter dated 18.12.2023 wrote to Opp. Party No. 5 submitting all the necessary documents as per the letter dated 13.12.2023. xvii. The Petitioner vide letter dated 24.12.2023 wrote to Opp. Party No. 4 stating that all the requisite details have been submitted by them to the Opp. Party No. 5 for allotment of the land for the present project. Further, in the said letter the Petitioner Page 4 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2025 18:29:17 apprised the CGM about the letter dated 21.06.2023 received from Opp. Party No. 6 stating that the proposed land is free from natural water sources and encroachment vide Letter dated 23.05.2023 xviii. After scrutiny, the Land Officer vide letter dated 29.12.2023 wrote to the Petitioner stating that the schedule land as proposed by the Petitioner for setting up of the proposed plant has already been filed under Land Bank Category-A on behalf of another party. Consequently, the Petitioner was requested to submit alternative land proposal to IDCO for establishment of the proposed plant. xix. The Opp. Party No.2 vide letter dated 16.01.2024 wrote to Additional Secretary to Government, Department of Water Resources for providing of 0.745 cusec water from Therei Nala and Sona River to the Petitioner for setting up of 1.20 MTPA Iron Ore Beneficiation Plant and 0.8 MTPA Pellet Plant at Village- Bhanjapali, Tahasil- Koida, Dist.-Sundargarh, xx. The Land Officer vide letter dated 16.05.2024 wrote to Petitioner to clarify the deposit of processing fee as per the request made by the Petitioner Company on 18.12.2023. The same was replied to by the Petitioner vide letter dated 20.05.2024 clarifying that the deposit of process fee paid to IDCO by the Petitioner. Page 5 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2025 18:29:17 xxi. The Petitioner on 22.07.2024 wrote to CGM (Land), through Letter and Email, stating that the dignitaries of Government of Odisha had visited Raipur, Chhattisgarh, for inviting the investors of Chhattisgarh to set up industrial units in Odisha, wherein the Petitioner being a Chhattisgarh registered company is interested to set up a Beneficiation Plant and Pellet Plant at Bhanjapali, Tahasil- Koira, Dist. Sundargarh. Further, in the said letter, the Petitioner apprised the CGM regarding the steps taken by the Petitioner till date for the proposed project and requested the Opp. Party No.3 to consider the allotment of land to the Petitioner at the earliest. xxii. The Land Officer, IDCO Bhubaneswar, vide letter dated 18.10.2024 wrote to the Petitioner for submission of alternative land parcel for the proposed plant as for the scheduled land proposed, OP No. 3 has already filed lease proposal on behalf of a third party. Further, in the said letter the Land Officer also intimated that the said communication has already been informed to the Petitioner on 29.12.2023 xxiii. Thereafter, the Petitioner vide letter dated 23.10.2024 wrote to the Land Officer stating that the Letter No.21750 dated 13.07.2023 was never provided to the Petitioner. Further, in the said letter it was stated that there was an approval of the proposed plant being approved in the 123rd’ SLSWCA meeting Page 6 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2025 18:29:17 held on 31.10.2023 and in 244th SLFC meeting held on 11.08.2023. II. SUBMISISONS OF PETITIONER:
Decision
3. The Writ Petitioner is affected by the letter dated 18.10.2024 whereby the Land Officer, IDCO has stated that the Petitioner should submit for an alternative land parcel and as the already filed lease proposal of the Petitioner has been allotted to a third party. Once the proposal submitted by the Petitioner has been approved by the SLSWCA in its meeting dated 31.10.2023 and 244th SLFC meeting held on 11.08.2023, it is illegal on the part of the IDCO to deprive the Petitioner of the said land parcel. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 11 to contend that government should practice principle of reasonableness, and should be free of arbitrariness and bias. Further reliance has been placed on the case of Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517 to canvass the proposition that state action warrants interference when it falls foul of the principle of Wednesbury Unreasonableness. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mihan India Ltd. v. GMR Airports Ltd. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 574 to contend that it is the duty of state instrumentalities to abhor arbitrariness and irrationality. In such manner a challenge has been mounted to the letter dated 18.10.2024 by contending that the same is arbitrary, biased and irrational. Page 7 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2025 18:29:17 III. SUBMISISONS OF OPPOSITE PARTIES: 5. Per contra Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Opposite Parties submit that the Petitioner, in fact, seeks quashing of the Letter dated 18.10.2024 by the O.P. No.5 (not of O.P. No.1 as has been prayed for). It is submitted that vide the said selfsame letter the Petitioner has been called upon once again requesting it to submit the alternative land proposal for taking necessary action at their end. 6. It has been submitted that after detailed scrutiny, it was found that, IDCO has already filed lease proposal for the identified land of the Petitioner with the Tahasildar i.e. O.P. No.6 on behalf of one M/s. Rungta Mines Ltd. for establishment of industries under Land Bank, Category-A vide its Letter No.21750 dated 13.07.2023. The same has already been intimated by IDCO vide its office Letter No.41435 dated 29.12.2023 (Annexure-20) of O.P. No.5. Lastly, it is submitted that the Petitioner should have rather cooperated with IDCO in submitting the alternative land proposal as has been sought from it from time to time. The Petitioner, instead of submitting the alternative proposal unnecessarily stickup to the land which he identified. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 7. Heard Ld. Counsels for the parties. The records of the instant case reveal that the Petitioner vide letter dated 22.05.2023 addressed to the Tahasildar, Koira requested the Tahasildar to give field verification report of the land schedule as set out therein and to indicate what is the kisam of the land shown in the revenue records. The same was Page 8 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2025 18:29:17 replied to by the Tahasildar vide Letter No. 1040 dated 23.05.2023 which essentially indicated in the remarks column the nature of the land of the various plot numbers which are mentioned therein. Thereafter, the petitioner proceeded to fill up the proposal details on the “GOSWIFT” portal of the State Government by an application dated 2.6.2023. The same appears to have been registered as proposal number 2023065274. By an email dated 19.06.2023 certain clarifications were sought by the DGM IPICOL with regard to shortcomings in the application made. By letter dated 10.07.2023, the petitioner by referring to its application provided certain further details and requested for considering the proposal for clearance by the SLFC and subsequently by SLSWCA. 8. A perusal of the minutes of the 244th State Level Facilitation Cell (SLFC) meeting on 11.08.2023 reveals that the SLFC had recommended the proposal to SLSWCA for further consideration at its end. IDCO intimated to the Petitioner vide letter dated 4.11.2023 stating therein that in the 123rd SLSWCA meeting held on 31.10.2023, the project of the Petitioner had received “in principle” approval subject to certain terms and conditions as set out in the letter dated 4.11.2023. 9. Thereafter, vide letter dated 6.11.2023 the Petitioner submitted the land details of Ac 89.78 in Village-Bhanjapali, Tahsil-Koida as would be required by it for the first time and the justification for the particular land as was sought therein. On 13.11.2023 the IDCO Page 9 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2025 18:29:17 sought the plant layout for the proposed unit which was replied to by the Petitioner on 15.11.2023 with a request therein to recommend suitably to the concerned authorities for the allocation of land and water. Again letter dated 24.11.2023 submitted a revised general proposed lay out plan again with a request therein to recommend suitably to the concerned authorities for the allocation of land and water. IPICOL wrote to IDCO letter dated 2.12.2023 recommending for allotment of land. It was stated therein that the petitioner had applied for 81.69 acres of land at Tehsil-Koida and that the Sub- Committee had assessed the land requirement and had come to conclusion that the allotment of 56 acres would be suitable based on the details provided by the petitioner. In view of the same IPICOL wrote to IDCO that suitable land may be allotted in favour of the petitioner. 10. The Petitioner thereafter vide letter dated 7.12.2023 informed IDCO that they had identified a suitable patch of land meeting the requisite criteria for the proposed industry and submitted therewith a land alienation proposal. Along with the said letter, the land schedule, revenue layout, original revenue map and a copy of the record of rights in respect of the plots as per the land schedule was annexed with the letter. It was requested therein to consider their case for allotment/ alienation of the required land and to provide possession of the land in question for implementation of the project. The Land Officer, IDCO acting upon the letter dated 6.12.2023, vide letter dated Page 10 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2025 18:29:17 13.12.2023 sought further details/documents from the Petitioner for preparing the lease proposal and filing the same with the appropriate authority i.e. the Tahasildar. 11. The Petitioner, thereafter, provided all the requisitioned documents vide letter dated 18.12.2023. Once the complete set of documents were supplied it seems the same were verified and the IDCO vide its letter dated 29.12.2023 informed the Petitioner that from the records it was seen that the land in question stood already allotted/ filed under the Land Bank Category-A to another party, the Petitioner was thus requested by the IDCO authority to submit the alternative land proposal so that the same could be processed further. The Petitioner conveniently turning a blind eye to the developments as had unfolded in the interregnum wrote to the IDCO reiterating their demand for allotment of the land parcel in question. IDCO vide letter dated 18.10.2024 wrote back to the Petitioner stating that after detailed scrutiny it is found that IDCO has already filed lease proposal of the identified land with Tahsildar Koira on behalf of M/s Rungta Mines for establishment of Industries under Land Bank Category-A vide letter dated 13.07.2023 and which was conveyed by letter dated 29.12.2023 and again requested the Petitioner to submit the alternative land proposal for taking necessary action. 12. It has contended by the Ld. Counsel for the Opp. Parties that, at the threshold, the Writ Petition is not maintainable as the same suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties, since the Letter dated Page 11 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2025 18:29:17 29.12.2023 and impugned letter dated 18.10.2024 clearly discloses that, since the land proposed by one M/s. Rungta Mines Ltd., has been processed and thus third party rights has already been created. Despite being fully aware of the said factual position, the Petitioner has also consequently applied for the same land parcel and it has chosen not to implead the said party in whose favour third party rights stood crystalized at the time of filing of the Petition. It is thus contended that on this ground alone the Writ Petition ought to be dismissed at the threshold. 13. The same has some merit to it as well, it was clearly known to the petitioner while filing the instant petition that third party rights had accrued and in fact, the same forms the foundation of this petition. That being the case, for adjudication of the lis at hand the third party in question is not only a merely formal party but it is a necessary party. That being the case the present petition suffers from the malady of non-joinder of a necessary party and on that count alone the same ought not to be entertained. Thus, granting the prayer as sought in the instant petition would directly affect such a third party and the same ought to have been brought on record. 14. Another contention raised by the Ld. Counsels for the Opp. Parties is that the instant petition is also barred by delay and latches as the same has been filed after two years. It is submitted that the cause of action arose on 29.12.2023 when the fact as to the non-availability of the land parcel in question was initially intimated to the Petitioner. Page 12 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2025 18:29:17 The impugned latter dated 18.10.2024 is only consequential to the earlier letter which has also been referred in the impugned letter. The same, however, has been controverted by the Petitioner herein by stating that the earlier letter dated 29.12.2023 was, in fact, never served on them and they only came to know the details of land allocation on receiving the impugned latter dated 18.10.2024. This Court, thus, finds that the delay has been explained adequately and therefore holds this contention in favour of the petitioner. 15. A telling aspect of the matter has been brought on record by way of an affidavit by the Opp. Parties that the High Level Clearance Authority (hereinafter referred to as “HLCA”) in its 21st meeting held on 9.01.2020 had approved “in principle” the proposal of M/s. Rungta Mines Ltd. for capacity expansion of its integrated steel plant from 0.27 MTPA to 0.9 MTPA for setting up of 1.2 MTPA beneficiation plant, 3.24 MTPA Pellet Plant, 0.71 MTPA DRI Plant, 0.58 MTPA Rolling Mill, 171 MW CPP, Ferro Alloys Complex 0.054 MTPA, and other units at village, Kamanda, Dist. Sundargarh. IPICOL has recommended for allotment of land Ac.98.00 vide Letter No. 204 dated 20.05.2023. It is also categorically brought on record that the said M/s. Rungta Mines Ltd. is not only the previous applicant but also was recommended earlier, which had proposed the land in question for expansion and establishment of such plant. Whereas, as far as the present Petitioner is concerned, the State Level Single Window Clearance Authority (SLSWCA), in its 123rd Meeting Page 13 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2025 18:29:17 dated 31.10.2023 had approved “in principle” the proposal of the Petitioner for setting up 1.2 MTPA Iron Ore beneficiation Plant and 0.8 MTPA Pellet Plant and IPCOL recommended land measuring Ac.56.00 vide its Letter No.2841 dated 6.12.2023. It is clear that admittedly when the Petitioner initiated the very first step i.e. the submission of a preliminary proposal on the GOSWIFT portal on 2.6.2023, the process of allotment of the land in question had already been completed in favor of a third party and corresponding rights thereto had already accrued. 16. It has also vehemently been submitted on behalf of the Opp. Parties that at the initial stage, only processing fees is taken for taking up the case/issue and after entire procedure if land is suitable for allotment then only the project proponent is asked to pay land premium with other charges. After going through the applications during scrutiny of the said proposal submitted by both the project proponent, since it was found that, the land proposed by the earlier applicant M/ s. Rungta Mines Ltd. was having same land patch in village Bhanjapali, as proposed by the subsequent applicant. It is for this reason that the Petitioner was asked to submit the alternative land proposal. 17. It is further submitted that, in the meanwhile, as set out in the Letter vide 29.12.2023, IDCO has filed lease proposal of the proposed/identified land submitted by M/s Rungta Mines Ltd. with Tahasildar, Koira, Opp. Party No.6 for establishment of industries Page 14 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2025 18:29:17 under Land Bank, Category-A vide office Letter No.1750 dated 13.07.2023. 18. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 13 of the Orissa Industries (Facilitation) Act, 2004, the Orissa Industries (Facilitation) Rules,2005 have been framed. The same have been amended by the Orissa Industries (Facilitation) Amendment Rules, 2015. Rule 2A provides as hereunder; “2A. Preliminary Project Assessment application. ― (1) Every applicant who is not in possession of any land or not allotted with land for the purpose of establishment of an Industry or not in possession of land exceeding twenty five percentum of total land required for the project or for other activities, shall apply in Schedule I, before filing of Combined Application Form at Schedule I-A, through the Nodal Agency who shall, after examining the feasibility of the project including assessment of land, allotment thereof and for other utilities, recommend the concerned the same Competent Authority for approval of the said project.” to The said Rule is titled “Preliminary Project Assessment application”. It provides that every applicant who was not allotted with land for the purpose of establishment of an Industry or not in possession of land shall apply in Schedule I, before filing of Combined Application Form at Schedule I-A. through the Nodal Agency. The said Nodal agency has, in turn, be defined as the District Level, State Level or High Level Committee as the case may be. It has further been stipulated that the said committee shall, after examining the Page 15 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2025 18:29:17 feasibility of the project including assessment of land, allotment thereof and for other utilities, recommend the same to the concerned Competent Authority for approval of the said project. It is thus clear from a perusal of the aforesaid that the scheme of the Act and the Rules thereunder are such which involve a scrutiny of the feasibility (including availability itself) at multiple levels. That being the case, there was no vested right which had accrued in the Petitioner upon application having been approved and recommended. The same would be subject to the verification the project details at multiple levels including the extent of land that would be appropriate for the industry in question and the locational features of the land. The same also finds some force in the fact that although the Petitioner had originally requested for 89 Acres of land, upon scrutiny it was decided to allot 56 Acres taking the feasibility of the Unit into consideration. It is for this reason that the sub-committee having examined the proposal has assessed the requirement of the land of the project of 56 Acres, hence the IPICOL recommended accordingly subject to the conditions mentioned there under vide its letter dated 6.12.2023. 19. Even after receipt of the documents and scrutiny of the land proposed by the Petitioner, since it was found that the said land was not available anymore, the Petitioner was intimated accordingly and was requested to submit the alternative land proposal to IDCO for filing acquisition/lease proposal for establishment of its industries. Page 16 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2025 18:29:17 However, despite the same the Petitioner has not done so. In so far as the SLFC on 11.08.2023 is concerned which recommended the proposal submitted by the Petitioner to the SLSWCA which in turn accorded “in principle” approval on 31.10.2023 by the Opp. Party No.2 vide letter dated 2.12.2023 and recommended to Opp. Party No. 4 for providing land to the Petitioner. The HLCA on 9.01.2020 had already approved “in principle” the proposal of M/s. Rungta Mines Ltd. IPICOL had recommended for allotment of land on 20.05.2023. It is borne from the records that M/s RML has applied for the lease proposal to IDCO along with the requisite documents on 6.06.2023 which is much prior in point in time to the Petitioner. Thereafter, IDCO has filed lease proposal of the proposed/identified land submitted by M/s Rungta Mines Ltd. with Tahasildar, Koira, Opp. Party No.6 for establishment of industries under Land Bank, Category-A vide office Letter No.1750 dated 13.07.2023. Thus, even before the Petitioner had crossed the first stage of clearance i.e. on 11.8.2023 the lease proposal had been filed by IDCO on behalf of M/s Rungta Mines Ltd. i.e. on 13.7.2023. 20. In fact, from a combined conspectus of the factual situation as discussed hereinabove it is borne out from the facts of the case that third party rights over the land parcel in question had already been created in favor of a third party, who has not been impleaded as a party herein. That being the case, there is a frustration of the process of the petitioner, at least, in so far as the particular land parcel in Page 17 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2025 18:29:17 question is concerned, by supervening circumstances and the petitioner ought to be alive to the said fact. In any case, it is also seen, as discussed hereinabove, the proposal has to go through scrutiny at multiple levels including feasibility and availability itself. Thus, no rights are created till the time the party meets all the criteria and satisfies all the requisite parameters. V. CONCLUSION: 21. In view of the fact situation as discussed hereinabove, the Writ Petition merits no interference and the challenge must fail. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Ordered accordingly. 22. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 16th May, 2025/ Page 18 of 18