The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 21-Aug-2025 15:51:26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 19359 OF 2025 M/s Subhra Chemicals, Cuttack Petitioner …. Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate being assisted by Mr. Pramod Kumar Nayak, Advocate -versus- Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (IDCO), Bhubaneswar and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Bijaya Kumar Dash, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 20.08.2025 3. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Mr. Dash, learned counsel by filing Vakalatnama in Court enters appearance on behalf of IDCO. Vakalatnama is taken on record. 3. Petitioner, which is a MSME Unit, in this writ petition seeks to assail the letter No.993 dated 3rd June, 2023 (Annexure- 13) issued by the Divisional Head, IDCO, Cuttack Division cancelling the allotment of industrial plot No.10 with an area Ac.0.202 decimal at Industrial Estate Jagatpur (old) and directing to deliver vacant possession of the said plot from all encumbrances within a period of seven days of issuance of such letter. 4. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner purchased the Unit Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 21-Aug-2025 15:51:26 pursuant to an auction sale conducted by the Odisha State Financial Corporation (OSFC). Subsequently, the aforesaid industrial plot over which the Unit was existing, allotted in favour of the Petitioner by IDCO. While the Petitioner Unit was smoothly undertaking manufacture of calcinated Gypsum (pop) and hydrated lime, due to financial crises as well as lack of marketing facility of the product, the industry became sick. Thus, the Petitioner proposed to diversify the industrial activity. The Petitioner also contacted the banks and financial institutions for financial assistance to commence the diversified industrial activity. However, due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic and indifferent attitude of the banks/financial institutions to which the Petitioner approached, it could not commence the Unit. It is further submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate that to commence the diversified industrial activity the Petitioner required permission/approval of IDCO over which the Petitioner-Unit exists. Accordingly, it submitted an application on 21st April, 2025 to IDCO for approval of diversified industrial activity. 4.1 When the matter stood thus, show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner for cancellation of lease of industrial plot, to which it replied on 12th May, 2025 (Annexure-12). In the reply under Annexure-12, the Petitioner has specifically stated that it had submitted an application for diversification of industrial Unit vide Go-1-Pass Application No.2025/08/052 dated 21st April, 2025, which is pending approval. But without considering the same in its proper perspective, the impugned Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 21-Aug-2025 15:51:26 letter under Annexure-13 has been issued. Since the Petitioner apprehends immediate eviction from the industrial plot in which he has invested a huge amount, it finding no other alternative moved the present writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 5. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for IDCO vehemently objected to the same. It is his submission that the Petitioner Unit was afforded with ample opportunity to run the industrial Unit, but it failed. It had never submitted application seeking approval/permission for diversification of the industrial activity nor copy of the same is available in the case record. He further drew attention to the observations made in letter under Annexure-13, which is quoted as under:- “Now it appears that you have contravened the terms and conditions of the allotment, for which this office issued two show cause notices to you, vide the show cause letter referenced above, on the following grounds: 1. You are not utilizing the allotted plot for its intended purpose. There is no Industrial activity on the plot, and it remains vacant.” 6. Since the Petitioner has not yet vacated the industrial plot as directed in the impugned letter under Annexure-13, due process under law will be undertaken to evict the Petitioner. Thus, there is no imminent danger for eviction of the Petitioner from the plot in question. As it is clear that the Petitioner is not utilizing the land for which it was allotted and the land is lying vacant, the Petitioner has no semblance of right to occupy such plot. Further, the plea taken by the Petitioner that it had submitted an Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 21-Aug-2025 15:51:26 application for diversification of the industrial activity, is not correct. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that in the show cause reply, the Petitioner has taken a plea that it had submitted an application vide Go-1-Pass Application No.2025/08/052 dated 21st April, 2025 seeking approval for diversification of the industrial activity. On perusal of the impugned letter under Annexure-13, it does not appear that such a plea in the show cause reply has been taken into consideration by IDCO authority while cancelling the allotment of industrial plot. 8. It is submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate that such industrial activity, which was being undertaken by the Petitioner over the allotted plot, was not viable due to situation in the market. It is also stated in the show cause reply that the Petitioner is willing to diversify the industrial activity, if permitted by IDCO. Such a plea apparently has not been considered by IDCO while issuing letter under Annexure-13. In that view of the matter, this Court feels that the Petitioner should be given an opportunity to file a fresh application for approval of diversification of the industrial activity and the same should be considered providing opportunity to the Petitioner. 9. Accordingly, this Court, without delving into the merit of case of either parties, disposes of the writ petition with a direction that in the event Petitioner files a fresh application Page 4 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 21-Aug-2025 15:51:26 before the Managing Director, IDCO-Opposite Party No.3 seeking approval for diversification of the industrial activity within a period of two weeks hence observing required formalities, the same shall be considered in accordance with law giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. Till disposal of such application, if filed within the time stipulated above, the impugned letter under Annexure-13 cancelling the allotment of the industrial plot in favour of the Petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. s.s.satapathy (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (S.K. Mishra) Judge Page 5 of 5