M/s. Zenith Agro Fodds (P) Ltd. … v. ….. Mr. S.R. Pattnaik, Advocate Opposite parties Mr. P. Mohanty, Advocate Order No. 09
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 19667 of 2015 M/s. Zenith Agro Fodds (P) Ltd. ….. Petitioner Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, IDCO, BBSR and others Vs. ….. Mr. S.R. Pattnaik, Advocate Opposite parties Mr. P. Mohanty, Advocate Order No. 09 CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 13.03.2024 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. S.R. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 07.08.2014 under Annexure-7, the order dated 08.04.2015 under Annexure-9 cancelling the industrial lease made in favour of the petitioner, and also the order dated 06.10.2015 passed by the Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, IDCO, Bhubaneswar, which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 13.10.2015 under Annexure-17. 4. Mr. S.R. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was granted with a piece of land for industrial purpose by executing a lease deed in Annexure-1 for a period up to 01.06.2074 on payment of consideration amount of Rs.1,25,000.00 for an area measuring Ac. 0.100 decimal in the Industrial Estate Bhagabanpur, P.S-Khandagiri, Tahasil-Bhubaneswar in the district of Khurda for establishment of Spices Powder, i.e., Haldi, Chili, Page 1 of 5 Jeera, Dhania, Curry Powder and Garam Masala Powder unit. But, vide letter dated 07.08.2014, the cancellation of the allotted plot was made. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was rejected vide order dated 08.04.2015 under Annexure-9. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 9510 of 2015 and consequent upon the order of this Court dated 31.07.2015, the opposite parties took up the hearing against the appeal for revocation and passed the order on 06.10.2015, which was communicated vide order dated 13.10.2015. It is contended that though the petitioner complied with the terms and conditions of the lease deed, but arbitrarily and unreasonably the lease has been cancelled. 5. Mr. P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties contended that pursuant to agreement executed between the parties, the allotment order had been passed on 19.02.2003 with certain conditions stipulated therein. The petitioner has violated the conditions stipulated in clauses 10, 17 and 19 of the letter dated 19.02.2003. Thereby, notice of show cause was issued to the petitioner, but the petitioner did not respond. Accordingly, the impugned order of cancellation has been passed. Thereby, no illegality or irregularity committed by the authorities by cancelling such lease. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, admittedly lease was granted in favour of the petitioner vide Annexure-1 which was valid up to 01.06.2074 on payment of consideration amount of Rs.1,25,000.00 for an area measuring Ac. 0.100 decimal in Plot No. 66 of the Industrial Estate Bhagabanpur, P.S.Khandagiri, Tahasil-Bhubaneswar in the district of Khurda for establishment of Spices Powder, i.e., Haldi, Chili, Jeera, Dhania, Curry Powder and Garam Masala Powder unit. The lease Page 2 of 5 deed contained certain conditions, which the lessee was to comply. As such, on the basis of the lease executed, allotment order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 19.02.2003, after which the lessee was to comply the conditions stipulated in the allotment order also. But, as it reveals, due to non-compliance of the conditions stipulated in the lease deed, by giving opportunity of show cause, the order of cancellation of allotment of Plot No. 66 was passed by communicating the petitioner the following reasons:- 1. He has kept the plot un-utilized and thereby rendering allotment purpose thereof infructuous. 2. He has sublet the Plot with your interest in the concern in full /part without our prior approval. 3. He has not utilized the plot for the purpose for which it was allotted/ transferred. 4. He has constructed the building deviating the approved construction plan. 5. He has encroached IDCO land. 6. He has failed to deposit the statutory dues. 7. In response to the said letter, the petitioner gave a reply, which was considered under Anenxure-9 dated 08.04.2015 and it was intimated that the appeal of the petitioner for revocation of cancellation of allotment of IDCO Plot No.66 of land measuring Ac.0.250 was processed before the IDCO Management and since the petitioner failed to utilize the leasehold property, for which it was allotted, encroached IDCO land and made default in payment of statutory dues, the proposal for revocation of cancellation did not merit consideration and accordingly rejected the appeal of the petitioner. Challenging such action, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 9510 of 2015 and vide order dated 31.07.2015 the same was disposed of directing the Chairman-cum- Page 3 of 5 Managing Director to look into the appeal at the instance of the petitioner and dispose of the same. As a consequence thereof, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director passed the order dated 06.10.2015, which was communicated vide order dated 13.10.2015 under Annexure-17. The order of the Chairman-cum-Managing speaks as follows:- “In pursuance to order of Hon'ble High Court dt.31.7.2015 in WP (C) No.9510 of 2015 in the matter of M/s Zenith Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd, I.E., Bhagbanpur Vrs IDCO, notice and personal hearing was issued, the petitioner appeared before the undersigned for hearing on 6. 10.2015 to put forth his representation for revocation of cancellation. 1. The petitioner submitted that he was carrying out the production activities for more than a decade. Due to its stiff competition production capacity. He stated that IDCO authority mistook their reduced capacity as closure of business and cancelled the allotment. the unit reduced in market 2. When the petitioner was asked to inform the source of finance to implement the project in case the cancellation is revoked, he could not give a satisfactory reply ,nor could he produce any document evidencing his capability to run an industrial unit. 3. The petitioner has encroached IDCO land measuring Ac.0.007. He told that he has vacated it while applying for BDA plan approval. After hearing the petitioner I directed for a field report from the Division. Accordingly, the unit was inspected by the Division staff and obtained photograph for record. It is seen that the unit is closed and the factory premises is covered with bushes. There is no sign of functioning of the unit. The dated photographs of the unit are placed in the file. From the facts stated above and hearing the petitioner, the undersigned does not find any merit in the appeal of the petitioner for revocation of cancellation. Hence the appeal of the petitioner is rejected.” 8. Therefore, due to non-compliance of the conditions stipulated in the lease deed and also in the allotment order issued in favour of the petitioner, the lease has been cancelled. But the petitioner disputed such fact contending that it had complied with the terms and Page 4 of 5 conditions, but arbitrarily the opposite parties have cancelled the lease, for which the order of cancellation cannot be sustained in the eye of law. But fact remains, if any dispute is raised by the petitioner with regard to cancellation, then this Court is not the forum to adjudicate the disputed questions of fact. As such, if the cancellation has been made due to non-compliance of the conditions stipulated in the lease deed and also in the allotment order and the petitioner has not justified or produced the documents to the effect that he has complied with such conditions, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. 9. In the result, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same stands dismissed. JUDGE (DR. B.R. SARANGI) Arun (G. SATAPATHY) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 15-Mar-2024 17:11:59 Page 5 of 5