Orissa High Court
Susri Plastic Industry vs State Of Odisha And on 23 June, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.22396 of 2014
Susri Plastic Industry
(Pvt.) Ltd., Khurdha .... Petitioner
Mr. Milan Kanungo,
Senior Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and
another .... Opp. Parties
Mr. P.S. Nayak,
Addl. Government Advocate for
opposite party no.1
Mr. S.K. Padhi, Senior Advocate
for opposite party no.2
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 23.06.2025
10. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
Susri Plastic Industry (Pvt.) Ltd. with a prayer to
direct the opposite party no.2, IPICOL to consider the
OTS application of the petitioner as per the amended
MDF-OTS-07 scheme, as approved by Industries
Department, Government of Odisha vide resolution
No.7362 dated 26.05.2011 with a further prayer to
quash the demand notice dated 19.05.2014.
Mr. Padhi, learned Senior Advocate appearing
for the opposite party no.2, IPICOL at the outset
submits that the 2007 Scheme was withdrawn by the
IPICOL and five matters including these two matters,
which are listed today, were before this Court, out of
which, three matters have been disposed of and in
W.P.(C) No.5657 of 2013, which was filed by M/s.
Suburban Industries Private Limited and another and
this Court vide judgment and order dated 08.04.2024,
while dismissing the writ petition has been pleased to
hold as follows:-
"11. This Court is also not persuaded to
accept the contention of the petitioner that
after publication of the OTS Scheme, the
IPICOL is denuded from suspending/
withdrawing the same and the IPICOL has
no power to reject the OTS application of the
petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to the
benefit under the said scheme, in as much,
it is well established on a conspectus of
materials on record the circumstances
warranting changes and consequential
suspension and supersession of the OTS
Scheme 2007 was duly intimated to the
petitioner in letter dated 23.02.2013 at
Annexure-10."
Mr. Padhi further brought to the notice of this
Court that the petitioner in the said writ petition
approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil)
No.1192 of 2025 and vide order dated 28.02.2025,
the Special Leave Petition was dismissed. The copies
of the orders, which are filed by the learned Senior
Advocate, are taken on record.
Learned Senior Advocate, however, submits that
similar orders were passed by this Court in W.P.(C)
No.22753 of 2016 filed by M/s. Magnum Fibres Private
Ltd. and W.P.(C) No.513 of 2017 also filed by M/s.
Magnum Polymers Private Ltd. vide orders dated
08.10.2024. However, Mr. Padhi submits that he is
not aware whether the petitioner M/s. Magnum
Polymers Private Ltd. in W.P.(C) No.513 of 2017 has
approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court or not, but the
petitioner in W.P.(C) No.22753 of 2016 has
approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special
Leave to Appeal (C) No.4828 of 2025 and on
06.03.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed
the following orders:
"1. Issue notice, returnable in two weeks.
2. We request Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, the
learned counsel appearing for the
Corporation on Caveat to ascertain whether
there is any other way out for the petitioner
to save his factory premises standing on the
plot in question by paying some reasonable
amount to the Corporation."
Mr. Milan Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the petitioner submits that the factual
scenario in the cases as referred to above in the three
writ petitions are different than this writ petition,
which is disputed by Mr. Padhi, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the opposite party no.2 rather
he submits that the legal issues involved in all the five
writ petitions are one and same.
In view of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court is in seisin over the matter in Special Leave to
Appeal (C) No.4828 of 2025, we request Mr. Padhi,
learned Senior Advocate appearing for the opposite
party no.2 to ascertain whether there is any other way
out for the petitioner to save his factory premises
standing on the plot in question by paying some
reasonable amount to the Corporation as per the 2016
Scheme.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 shall
not only apprise us about the possibility of settlement
between the parties but also the development, if any,
be made before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4828 of
2025.
An affidavit to that effect shall be filed by the
opposite party no.2.
Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the petitioner submits that the prayer of
the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision in
the case of M/s. Devidayal Castings Pvt. Ltd.
-Vrs.- Haryana Financial Corporation and
Another reported in 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1134
and he filed the citation, which is taken on record.
However, Mr. Padhi, learned Senior Advocate
submits that in the three writ petitions which have
been disposed of by this Court, the case of Devidayal
Castings Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has already been taken
into account.
List this matter along with W.P.(C) No.12938 of
2016 on 11.08.2025.
Interim order dated 20th November, 2014
passed in Misc. Case No.19792 of 2014 shall continue
till the next date.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
( S.S. Mishra)
Judge
RKM
Signed by: RABINDRA KUMAR MISHRA
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 11:37:16
