Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,O.I.I.D.C., BHUBANESWAR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SARAT CHAND
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/04/1996
BENCH:
THOMAS K.T. (J)
BENCH:
THOMAS K.T. (J)
PUNCHHI, M.M.
CITATION:
1996 SCC (4) 490 JT 1996 (4) 725
1996 SCALE (4)53
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of
the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Bench made in OJC No.779/89. Admittedly, the appellant-
Corporation was constituted under the Orissa Industrial
Infrastructure Development Corporation Act, 1980 (for short,
the ’Act’). The Board has been constituted for the
management of the. affairs of the business of the
Corporation. Section 49 of the Act empowers the State
Government to place any industrial area or industrial estate
under the management and control of the Corporation. In
furtherance thereof, certain plots have been offered for
allotment in the industrial areas. The respondent is one of
the offerers to accept the plot. By letter dated August 1,
1987, the appellant had offered the shed For 90 years lease
for the consideration mentioned thereunder. The respondent,
by letter dated September 3, 1987, accepted the offer and
requested to transfer the plot in his favour. In furtherance
thereof, the plot came to be allotted. Subsequently, relying
upon the internal correspondence between the Government and
the respondent and the letter of the Government dated
14.10.1980, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High
Court seeking direction to reduce the amount fixed under the
lease. The High Court in the impugned order directed to
place the matter before the Government for final decision in
the light of the directions.
The question, therefore,is: whether the view of the
High Court is correct in law? Section 4 of the Act vests the
general superintendence, directions and management of
affairs and business of the Corporation in the Board of
Directors subject to the powers issued by the Government
under Section 18 which reads as under:
"18. The State Government may issue
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
to the Corporation such general or
special directions as to policy as
it may think necessary or expedient
for carrying out the purposes of
this Acts, and the Corporation
shall be bound to follow and act
upon such directions,"
Section 33 which is sought to be relied on by the
counsel for the respondent also contemplates that certain
directions be given by the State Government to the
Corporation in the way for disposal of the land acquired by
the Government and transfer to it without undertaking or
carrying out any development thereon. Such directions would
not be construed a routine administrative direction in the
day to day administration of the Corporation, It must be
read along with Section 18 in which the Government have been
given power to give special of general directions as a
policy guideline in the management of the Board and also
disposal of the properties. Otherwise, the very authority
gets eroded and it would become a wing of the Government
Department which does not appear to be the object of the
Act. The letter which was relied on by the respondent would
indicate as if the State has assumed the management in the
day to day control of the administration of the affairs of
the Board and the manner in which the sites are to be
disposed of. It would appear that the Government had
exceeded its power under Section 18 read with Section 33 of
the Act.
Accordingly, the High Court was not right in giving
direction to place the matter again before the Government.
Six months’ time is given to the respondent to pay the
balance amount.
The appeal is allowed. No costs.