IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) NO. 21510 OF 2014

In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of

the Constitution of India.

Kishore Kumar Ratha …. Petitioner

-Versus-

Orissa Industrial Infrastructure …. Opp. Parties

Development Corporation & Ors. Advocates appeared in this case:

For Petitioner : M/s. Gourimohan Rath, S. Patnaik,

S.S. Padhy & S. Satpathy, Advocates

For Opp. Parties: Mr. Pradipta Ku. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate,

with M/s D.N. Mohapatra, J. Mohanty,

P.K. Nayak, S.N. Das, A. Das & P.

Mohanty, Advocates

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

J U D G M E N T

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of hearing & judgment : 08.09.2025

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD,J Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 27.08.2014 issued by OP No.2 at Annexure-6, whereby allotment of plot made in his favour vide order dated 21.02.2005 has been cancelled.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the validity of impugned order on the following grounds:

2.1. There is absolutely no fault on the part of petitioner, inasmuch as much time and money has been invested to bring the plot in question to the level, regard being had to its topography, and this aspect has not been looked into by the OP No.2.

2.2. Petitioner has not been given a reasonable opportunity before taking the extreme action of termination of allotment and therefore, the action is violative of principles of natural justice.

2.3. The extreme action of rescinding the allotment, when the development is half a through, militates against the principle of proportionality and therefore, other alternate punitive actions should have been explored.

2.4. In the fact matrix of the case, petitioner ought to have been given one more opportunity to develop the plot in question and to start the business for which it has been allotted.

3. After service of notice the OPs have entered appearance through their learned panel counsel and opposed the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order. The panel counsel repels the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner stating that despite giving sufficient opportunity, petitioner has not developed the plot for starting the business and thus the purpose for which it has been allotted has been defeated. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

4.1. Admittedly, a plot admeasuring 19,650 sq. mtrs. at Bolangir was allotted to the petitioner vide letter dated 21.02.2005 at Annexure-1 for establishing industry, namely, Lodging & Boarding/Hotel on lease basis. On payment of Rs.10,80,750/-, petitioner got registered lease deed dated 01.07.2005 with a tenure up to 2084. It is one of the essential terms of the lease that petitioner should construct a hotel building within twelve months. Undisputedly, no building has been constructed, whatever be the arguable reason. Thus, there is breach of this condition.

4.2. Industrial plots are allotted to the entrepreneurs at a concessional rate so that they develop the industries, which in turn would generate public/private employment and also adds to the economic growth of the region. An allottee, who does abide by the condition, thus would defeat the very purpose of allotment and thereby cause injustice to the public interest. He cannot be permitted to keep the plot vacant indefinitely with impunity. Had the said plot been allotted to another entrepreneur, that would have benefited the State in more than one way.

4.3. The vehement submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that he was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing is liable to be rejected, inasmuch as he was given a show cause notice dated 16.07.2014 before taking the im