Orissa High Court
M/S. Pashupati Ispat Pvt. Ltd vs Odisha Industrial ... on 11 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.38796 of 2021
(Through Hybrid mode)
M/s. Pashupati Ispat Pvt. Ltd. .... Petitioner
-versus-
Odisha Industrial Infrastructure .... Opposite Parties
Development Corporation and
another
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. S. P. Mishra, Senior Advocate
Mr. B. Bhuyan, Advocate
For opposite parties : Mr. P. K. Mohanty, Senior Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and Judgment: 11.04.2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARINDAM SINHA, J.
1. Mr. Mishra, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of
petitioner. He submits, his client, is a small scale industry. It purchased
the plot, from Odisha State Financial Corporation (OSFC). The
purchase was occasioned on original lease allottee having defaulted in
repayment on the credit facilities, lease rent and other dues. The land
// 2 //
belongs to Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation
(IDCO).
2. He submits, his client on purchase from OSFC had applied for
transfer, by their letter dated 20th February, 1991 addressed to the
Managing Director of IDCO. Subsequent thereto, his client filed
several writ petitions for direction upon IDCO, to complete the
transfer. Under order made in one of those writ petitions, statutory dues
of Rs.16,63,788/- were paid by Demand Draft dated 24th July, 2017.
Still the transfer was not made. Ultimately, in his client's last
preceding writ petition WP(C) no.32495 of 2020, there was order dated
10th December, 2020 made by the First Division Bench, for IDCO to
take a final view on application dated 24th June, 2020 made by his
client. He submits, purported result of the consideration is reiteration
by impugned demand dated 9th June, 2020, of exorbitant amount on
transfer fees and misconceived penalty fees in excess of Rs.1.19 crores.
He seeks interference.
3. Mr. Mohanty, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of
IDCO and draws attention to order dated 26th February, 2021 passed by
Chairman-cum-Managing Director of IDCO, being result of the
consideration on petitioner's said application dated 24th June, 2020. He
WPC no.38796 of 2021
// 3 //
submits, there has been finding by the order that petitioner could only
be said to have applied on 13th November, 2019, as prior to that
petitioner had, inter alia, not cleared the statutory dues nor had vacated
unauthorized encroachment of 34 decimals of land. As such, good
reasons and basis were given for reiterating the demand, against which
petitioner had filed its last preceding writ petition.
4. On query from Court Mr. Mohanty submits, the excess land
was encroached by original allottee. Several notices were sent to
petitioner, who had subsequently occupied the land. It is only after
orders were made in aforesaid writ petitions that petitioner vacated the
unauthorizedly occupied land. After payment of the statutory dues as
well, also under direction made by the writ Court, petitioner's
application could be deemed to be properly made and the date of it was
correctly fixed as 13th November, 2019. As there had been gross delay
in applying for the transfer, demand was duly made on current transfer
fee and penalty. There should not be interference. He draws attention
to page 5 of said order dated 26th February, 2021 to demonstrate that
procedure followed was IDCO (Disposal of Land, Building,
Amenities) Regulations, 2016, clause 19 therein read with procedure in
post allotment proposal as per circular no.15995 dated 23rd July, 2016,
paragraph 2.3 (i).
WPC no.38796 of 2021
// 4 //
5. On query from Court Mr. Mohanty hands up the regulations.
We reproduce clause 19 from the regulations.
"19. Transfer of land / shed by the allottee Entrepreneur
- The Corporation may permit the allottee to transfer
his land on such terms and conditions as the
Corporation may decide, from time to time:
Provided that no land which is lying vacant or remains
unutilized shall be allowed to be transferred:
Provided further that no land shall be transferred in
violation of the terms and conditions in the lease deed or
agreement as the case may be executed between the
allottee entrepreneur and Corporation:
Provided also that such transfer of land shall be only for
the purpose of establishment of industries and social
infrastructures."
(emphasis supplied)
We are clear in our mind that clause 19 in the regulations do not
provide authority for imposition of penalty. This is for two reasons.
Firstly, the clause is applicable, when the corporation permits an
allottee to transfer. In this case the allottee could not retain the
leasehold, for having become a defaulter on credit facilities extended,
which was taken over by OSFC and thereupon sold to petitioner.
Secondly, the clause does not mention penalty.
WPC no.38796 of 2021
// 5 //
6. We are not inclined to delve further, to look into the circular
referred in said order dated 26th February, 2021. We have sufficient
ground to set it aside and consequently impugned demand. Since
parties had accepted said order dated 10th December, 2020, made in
aforesaid WP(C) no. 32495 of 2020 and had attempted to work out
directions made therein to result in the order set aside herein, the
application/representation of petitioner dated 24th June, 2020 is
restored to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of IDCO for
reconsideration. During pendency of the representation with the
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, petitioner will continue to pay
rents. Mr. Mishra submits, current rents are being paid and his client
will continue to go on paying the same.
7. With above directions the writ petition is disposed of.
( Arindam Sinha )
Judge
( S. K. Mishra )
Judge
Prasant
WPC no.38796 of 2021
