AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Â
This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing mode.   Â
This matter was heard on 12.05.2021.
We have heard Miss Deepali Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Appellant at length and Mr. Avijit Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the
Opposite Party No.8.
This is an Intra-Court Appeal. The Petitioner/Appellant assails the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 12.02.2021 in W.P.(C) No.23202
of 2020, dismissing the Petitioner’s prayer to quash Annexure-4, i.e. letter dated 12.08.2020, with regard to provisional allotment of land measuring
Ac.0.344 corresponding to IDCO Plot No.SM-N-80 & SM-B-/81 at Industrial Estate, Autonagar-II, Berhampur in Ganjam District on OP basis for
establishment of a Saw Mill Unit in favour of M/s. Charidham Company i.e. Opposite Party No.8.
The writ application has been dismissed on the ground that the Petitioner/Appellant does not have the locus standi to challenge the aforesaid annexure
and order passed by the Opposite Parties in favour of the Opposite Party No.4. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the order
passed in W.P.(C) No.19485 of 2018 and came to the conclusion that the Petitioner does not have any locus standi to challenge the order of the State
Government of the IDCO. The learned Single Judge further held that inaction on the part of the authorities in the matter of rehabilitation of the
Petitioner’s Saw Mill has no nexus with the provisional allotment of land in Industrial Estate at Autonagar-II, Berhampur in favour of Opposite
Party No.8 (a Wood Based Industry). Both the matters are unquestionable distinct and cannot be pitted with each other. As such, the learned Single
Judge was not inclined to entertain the prayer for setting aside the letter dated 12th August, 2020 under Annexure-4 to the writ application, which was
issued by the IDCO-Opposite Party No.7 making a provisional allotment of land in favour of Opposite Party No.8.
In course of hearing, the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant could not satisfy about this aspect of the case. Moreover, we see that the
learned Single Judge has already given a direction to the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 7 to take appropriate steps so that the Petitioner’s Saw Mill
can be rehabilitated as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the date of judgment.
In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there is hardly any scope to interfere in the matter, as the learned Single Judge has already given
a direction for consideration of its case for rehabilitation.
With such observation, the writ appeal is disposed of.
As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize the soft copy /downloaded
copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copies, subject to attestation by Miss Deepali
Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Appellant, in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020 as modified by
Court’s Notice No.4798 dated 15.04.2021.
……..…………..