The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). NO. 19292 OF 2025 …. Petitioner M/s. Sai Chemicals, a proprietorship concerned represented through its Proprietor Lilima Maharana,W/o-Sri Aditya Prasad Patra, resident of Natabar Natar, Tata Bench square, P.S.- Baidyanathpur, Berhampur Town, District-Ganjam Mr. Laxman Pradhan, Advocate -versus- 1. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, IDCO, Bhubaneswar 2. Chief General Manager (MSME), Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Develop Corporation, Bhubaneswar 3. Divisional Head, IDCO Industrial Estate, Berhampur 4. The Portal Administrator, IDCO, Bhubaneswar …. Opposite Parties Order No. 02. CORAM:
Decision
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 09.09.2025 W.P.(C) No. 19292 of 2025 & I.A. No. 11424 of 2025 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 1. 2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 3rd May, 2025 vide Annexure-6 and the order dated 2nd July, 2025 vide Annexure-9 issued by the Divisional Head (In-charge), IDCO, Berhampur Division cancelling the allotment of industrial plot made in favour of the Petitioner vide Order No. 1256 dated 11th September, 2015. Page 1 of 5 3. Mr. Laxman Pradhan, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had applied for allotment of an industrial plot for manufacturing of Lime & Hydrated Lime. Considering such application the Petitioner was allotted Industrial Plot No. 59 with an area of Ac.0.229 (1000 square feet of Revenue Plot No. 3028 (P) under Khata No.991/K of Mouza-Sri Ramachandrapur Industrial Estate under Chhatrapur Tahasil in the District of Ganjam. Pursuant to such allotment, the Petitioner paid the entire cost of Rs.5,03,800/- together with registration fee and cost. On receipt of the same, a lease deed was executed and registered in favour of the Petitioner on 1st December, 2016. On taking over possession, the Petitioner took steps to construct the industrial shed and commence manufacturing. But due to Pandemic of Covid-19 and financial stringency, he could not start construction within the stipulated time. However, the Petitioner was paying the dues as per the lease condition regularly. Since no construction could be undertaken, the IDCO issued show cause notice on 22nd July, 2024 for cancellation of the lease deed. The Petitioner replied to the said show cause notice on 5th August, 2024. No action was taken on receipt of reply to the said show cause notice of the Petitioner. But subsequently, the Divisional Head of IDCO, Berhampur Division issued show cause notice for cancellation of the allotment on 3rd May, 2025. Upon receipt of the said notice, the Petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.73,191/- with the IDCO on 13th May, 2025. But the authority without waiting for the show cause reply to be filed by the Petitioner, cancelled the allotment and communicated the same to the Petitioner vide letter dated 3rd March, 2025 vide Annexure-6. Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted a Page 2 of 5 representation to allow him to commence commercial production by 31st March, 2026, but the said representation of the Petitioner was rejected and communicated vide email dated 2nd July, 2025 (Annexure-9). Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 4. Mr. Laxman Pradhan, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that due to unavoidable circumstances, the Petitioner could not commence commercial production, but it undertakes to commence commercial production within a period of one year hence. Hence, he prays for setting aside the order under Annexures-6 and 9. 5. Mr. Bijaya Kumar Dash, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties-IDCO vehemently objects to such submission. It is his submission that the Petitioner at no point of time showed any interest either to start construction of the unit/shed or to commence commercial production, for the last 10 years. The land allotted in favour of the Petitioner is lying vacant. The land is meant for industrial use. Since the Petitioner has not showed any interest to use the land for industrial purpose, it has no right to retain the same. Opportunity of hearing was also provided to the Petitioner to justify its action/inaction. But it failed to do so. Hence, there is no illegality in the impugned order under Annexure-6 in cancelling the allotment made in favour of the Petitioner. Further after cancellation of the allotment, the authority had no occasion to entertain any prayer of the Petitioner for grant of time to commence commercial production. Hence, the representation of the Petitioner was rightly rejected. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the Page 3 of 5 parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that the Petitioner has not yet started construction of the unit/ shed over the land allotted to it for industrial purpose. The land has been allotted in the industrial estate and is meant for being used for industrial purpose. In the meantime, 10 years have already elapsed. 7. It is also borne out from the records, that opportunity of hearing has been given to the Petitioner to show cause as to why the allotment made in its favour shall not be cancelled but the Petitioner failed to submit a reply to the said show cause notice. At this stage, Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that another opportunity may be given to the Petitioner to file show cause reply to the notice dated 3rd May, 2025. 8. It is, however, objected to by Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties-IDCO. 9. Taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court feels that another opportunity should be given to the Petitioner to file its reply to the show cause notice dated 3rd May, 2025. 10. In view of the above, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case of the Petitioner, disposes of this writ petition with a direction that in the event, the Petitioner submits its reply to the show cause notice dated 3rd May, 2025 within a period of 15 days hence, the same shall be considered by the Divisional Head, IDCO Industrial Estate, Berhampur in the District of Ganjam - Opposite Party No.3 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month therefrom giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. Page 4 of 5 11. It is made clear that no further extension of time for filing of reply shall be entertained either by this Court or by the authority. 12. Till disposal of the reply, if any, filed within the stipulated time as aforesaid, no coercive action for eviction of the Petitioner from the industrial plot, in question shall be taken. 13. The writ petition as well as I.A. is accordingly disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. puspa (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (Savitri Ratho) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 11-Sep-2025 18:38:11 Page 5 of 5