SANTOSH KUMAR MOHANTY vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.17170 of 2019
In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India.
------------------
Santosh Kumar Mohanty Petitioner
….
-versus-
1. State of Orissa,
Department
of Tourism, represented
through its Secretary,
Secretariat Building,
Bhubaneswar
2. Orissa Industrial
Infrastructural
Development
Corporation, Govt. of
Orissa
Undertaking IDCO, Tower
3. Chief General Manager,
ID, Orissa Industrial
Infrastructural
Development
Corporation, IDCO Tower,
Janpath, Bhubaneswar
4. General Manager,
District Single Window
Clearance Authority
5. Chief General Manager
(MSME) Orissa Industrial
Infrastructural
Development
Corporation, IDCO
Tower,Janpath
…. Opposite Parties
1 26
Page of
W.P.(C) No.17170 of 2019
6. Chairman -cum-
Managing Director, Orissa
Industrial Infrastructural
Development
Corporation, IDCO Tower,
Janpath
7. State of Odisha
represented
through its Principal
Secretary, Revenue and
Disaster Management
Department
For Petitioner : Mr. M. Kanungo, Sr. Advocate
Mr. D. Acharya, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA
(O.Ps 1 & 7)
Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate
(O.Ps 2 to 6)
CORAM:
JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
DATE OF FINAL HEARING: 17.03.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 24.06.2026
V. Narasingh, J. Heard Mr. M. Kanungo, learned
senior counsel along with Mr. D. Acharya, learned
counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned
Senior Counsel for the Opposite Parties 2 to 6 and
2 26
Page of
W.P.(C) No.17170 of 2019
Mr. M.R. Mohanty, learned AGA for the State
(Opposite Parties 1 and 7).
1. The present writ application has been filed
assailing the impugned order dated 09.08.2019 of
the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, IDCO,
Bhubaneswar (Annexure-4).
2. It is apt to note that this is the second
journey of the Petitioner to this Court. Earlier he
had moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.9006 of 2014,
which was disposed of by order dated 09.04.2019.
3. The undisputed facts germane for just
adjudication runs thus;
In light of the recommendation for such
allotment by the Department of Tourism and
Culture, Government of Odisha, IDCO, vide letter
dated 18.11.2010, accorded in-principle approval
for allotment of land, i.e., Plot No. B/12/A
corresponding to Revenue Plot No. 6(P), Rev.
Khata No. 474/1607, Mouza–Patia, measuring
Ac.0.092 under Chandaka Industrial Area, in
3 26
Page of
W.P.(C) No.17170 of 2019
favour of the Petitioner for establishment of a
Hotel, Lodge and Boarding Unit.
3-A. When the matter stood thus, by letter
dated 23.12.2013, the approval granted in terms
of the letter dated 18.11.2010 was cancelled.
Assailing the same, the Petitioner approached this
Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 9006 of 2014, which
was disposed of by order dated 09.04.2019. While
disposing of the said writ petition, this Court
granted liberty to the Petitioner to file a detailed
representation before the Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, IDCO, Bhubaneswar.
This Court also took note of the stand of
IDCO, as put forth by its counsel, that IDCO had
no objection to allotting the plot to the Petitioner
for opening a hotel, provided he agreed to pay the
prevailing market rate.
For appreciating the lis in its proper
perspective, the aforementioned order passed by
4 26
Page of
W.P.(C) No.17170 of 2019
this Court, which has a great bearing on the rival
contentions, is extracted hereunder for
convenience of reference:-
“xxx xxx xxx
The petitioner wanted to open an hotel. The
D.I.C. and the Tourism Department opined
favorably in favour of opening of a hotel by the
petitioner. The petitioner thereafter, along with
recommendation of the D.I.C. and the Tourism
Department applied for a piece of land from the
IDCO. IIDCO in-principle agreed to provide a
piece of land to the petitioner along with
schedule of property vide Annexure-3. However,
in a high, level meeting under the chairmanship
of Chief Secretary, Odisha held on 3.4.2012, it
was decided to reject the proposal in favour of
the petitioner and to withdraw the in-principle
Letter No.22997 dated 18.11.2010. (Annexure-3)
issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner
is aggrieved by the aforesaid letter.
Mr. Mukharji, learned counsel for the
IDCO with his usual fairness submits that the
IDCO has no problem in allotting a plot to the
petitioner for opening of a hotel, if he agrees to
pay present market rate. The High Level
Committee took a decision on 3.4.2012 in view
5 26
Page of
W.P.(C) No.17170 of 2019
of the principle decided by the Government vide
Notification dated 12.04.2010 in Annexure-B/2 to
the counter affidavit, wherein it has been decided
that the Government land in Bhubaneswar
Municipal Corporation area will not be allotted to
the industrial units at a concessional rate.
Regard being had to the facts and
submission, the writ petition is disposed of
directing the petitioner to file a detailed
representation before the CMD, IDCO making an
offer to take a piece of land for opening of the
hotel by paying the present market value for the
same. If such an offer is made by the petitioner,
the same shall be considered and disposed of
with promptitude with a period of two months
from the date of application, giving preference to
the petitioner to allot a land at a place where
hotel business shall be conducive. If the
particular plot vide Annexure-3 is available, the
allotment of the same in favour of the petitioner
may also be considered.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed
of.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasized)
3-B. On the basis of such order, the Petitioner
filed his representation on 26.04.2019. By the
6 26
Page of
W.P.(C) No.17170 of 2019
impugned order dated 09.08.2019 (Annexure-4),
the said representation of the Petitioner was
rejected, inter alia, on two grounds;
(i) the Notification of the R & DM
Department dated 13.03.2018, which
stipulated that allotment for hotels has to
be made through the auction method; and
(ii) the pendency of a case before the
NGT vide O.A. No. 100/2017/EZ.
4. In the factual matrix noted above, it is
submitted by the learned Senior Counsel, Mr.
Kanungo, appearing for the Petitioner, that the
impugned order is the outcome of gross non-
application of mind. He further submitted that the
doctrine of promissory estoppel squarely applies
and that, in the process, the Petitioner’s rights
1
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the
1
19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech,
etc .—(1) All citizens shall have the right—
( a ) to ( e ) xxx xxx xxx
7 26
Page of
W.P.(C) No.17170 of 2019
Constitution have been violated. It is also
contended that the impugned order is ex facie
arbitrary, in as much as persons similarly
circumstanced have been allotted land for the very
same purpose of establishing hotels in and around
the plot for which the Petitioner had applied, as
borne out from uncontroverted RTI information
placed on record.
5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the
Opposite Parties, Mr. Mohanty, submitted that no
vested rights can be said to have been created by
virtue of the allotment letter which had not
attained finality.
6. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Mohanty, on
instructions, with his usual fairness, has stated
that in the present lis, IDCO stands by the
submission made before this Court, while
disposing of the earlier writ application inter alia
( g ) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or
business.
8 26
Page of
W.P.(C) No.17170 of 2019
that IDCO had no objection to allot the land, if the
Petitioner makes a fresh representation agreeing
to pay the prevailing market value of the land.
7. It is the stand of the learned Senior
Counsel, Mr. Mohanty, appearing for IDCO, that in
view of the latest decision of the Government in
the Revenue and Disaster Management
Department No. 8937 dated 13.03.2018 that lands
within the municipal corporation area limits of
Bhubaneswar, Cuttack, Berhampur, Rourkela,
Sambalpur and within the municipal area limit of
Puri are to be allotted only through auction, there
is no illegality in passing the impugned order in
view of the resolution referred to hereinabove.
8. In terms of the order passed by this Court,
the judgment dated 25.03.2022 passed by the
Hon’ble National Green Tribunal in O.A. No.
100/2017/EZ, which is one of the reasons for non-
9 26
Page of
W.P.(C) No.17170 of 2019
entertainment of the Petitioner’s representation,
was placed on record.
Paragraph-22 of the said order, on which
reliance is placed by the learned senior counsel
Mr. Mohanty as well as Paragraphs-23 and 24
which are also significance are extracted
hereunder;
xxx xxx xxx
“
22. In this view of the matter, this Original
Application is disposed of with the direction to
the Respondent No.5, IDCO, along with the
Divisional Forest Officer, Chandaka Wildlife
Division and the State Respondents to ensure
DGPS survey of the area is completed in concert
with the Odisha Space Application Centre
(ORSAC) within a period of one month. On
completion of such DGPS survey, the same shall
be uploaded by IDCO along with all other
requisite documents on the Parivesh Website as
per guidelines issued by the MoEF&CC vide letter
dated 27.10.2014 within a further period of one
month.
The IDCO is further directed to obtain the
forest clearance from the Ministry of environment,
10 26
Page of
W.P.(C) No.17170 of 2019
Forests and Climate Change within four months
from the date of this order.
23. IDCO, Odisha is further warned that in future,
proposals for forest clearance should be done on
time and any laxity on their part will be viewed
seriously by the Tribunal.
24. Needless to say that the Respondent No. 5 will
be liable for Compensatory Afforestation and for
fulfillment of all other liabilities including Penal Net
Present Value (NPV) as the process of such
conversion of Forest land to non forest may entail.
xxx xxx xxx”
9. It is apt to note that relying on the
information obtained under the Right to
2
Information Act, 2005 , learned senior counsel,
Mr. Kanungo, for the Petitioner drew the attention
of this Court to several plots which have been
identified in and around the Petitioner’s plot for
the purpose of the Hotel Industry(Annexure-1).
2
The Right to Information Act, 2005, Act No. 22 of 2005
11 26
Page of
W.P.(C) No.17170 of 2019
For convenience of ready reference,
relevant part of Annexure-1 is extracted
hereunder;
Such factual position is not disputed
by the learned senior counsel, Mr. Mohanty,
for the IDCO .
12 26
Page of
W.P.(C) No.17170 of 2019
10. On perusal of the impugned order
(Annexure-4), it is seen that it specifically refers
to the pendency of Original Application No.
100/2017/EZ before the National Green Tribunal,
Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata, and the
policy/Resolution of the Revenue and Disaster
Management Department dated 13.03.2018.
10-A. On a bare reading of the Judgment
dated 25.03.2022 passed by the the Hon’ble
National Green Tribunal, which has been placed
on record, it is seen that by the said judgment
there is no embargo on allotment of land. And,
only a direction has been issued for carrying out
compensatory afforestation.
In paragraph 23 of the said judgment, the
Hon’ble Tribunal has, in fact, issued a caution to
be careful in future qua IDCO, as noted above.
11. Admittedly, the allotment in the case at
hand was made in the year 2010 and the stand of
13 26
Page of
W.P.(C) No.17170 of 2019
the IDCO Authority was reiterated before this
Court in the earlier motion at the behest of the
Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9006 of 2014, with the
only rider that on payment of present market
value the offer made by the Petitioner shall be
considered.
12. There is nothing on record to indicate that
the Resolution No. 8937 dated 13.03.2018 of the
Revenue & Disaster Management Department, on
which reliance is now being placed, has any
retrospective or retroactive operation.
13. It is apt to note that in terms of the
direction as given, the Petitioner has already
indicated in his representation that he is ready
and willing to pay the current market price.
14. The maxim lex prospicit non respicit needs
no emphasis that a rule or law cannot be
construed as retrospective unless it expresses a
clear or manifest intention to the contrary. In this
14 26
Page of
W.P.(C) No.17170 of 2019
context reference can be gainfully made to the
Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Commissioner Income Tax(Central)-1, New
3
Delhi v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd ;
“ 31. Of the various rules guiding how a
legislation has to be interpreted, one established
rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a
legislation is presumed not to be intended to
have a retrospective operation. The idea behind
the rule is that a current law should govern
current activities. Law passed today cannot apply
to the events of the past. If we do something
today, we do it keeping in view the law of today
and in force and not tomorrow’s backward
adjustment of it. Our belief in the nature of the
law is founded on the bed rock that every human
being is entitled to arrange his affairs by relying
on the existing law and should not find that his
plans have been retrospectively upset. This
principle of law is known as lex prospicit non
respicit: law looks forward not backward. As was
observed in Phillips vs. Eyre , a retrospective
legislation is contrary to the general principle
that legislation by which the conduct of mankind
is to be regulated when introduced for the first
3
CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. , (2015) 1 SCC 1
15 26
Page of
W.P.(C) No.17170 of 2019
time to deal with future acts ought not to change
the character of past transactions carried on
upon the faith of the then existing law.
32. The obvious basis of the principle against
retrospectively is the principle of 'fairness’, which
must be the basis of every legal rule as was
observed in the decision reported in L’Office
Cherifien des Phosphates v. Yamashita-Shinnihon
Steamship Co.Ltd . Thus, legislations which
modified accrued rights or which impose
obligations or impose new duties or attach a new
disability have to be treated as prospective
unless the legislative intent is clearly to give the
enactment a retrospective effect; unless the
legislation is for purpose of supplying an obvious
omission in a former legislation or to explain a
former legislation. We need not note the
cornucopia of case law available on the subject
because aforesaid legal position clearly emerges
from the various decisions and this legal position
was conceded by the counsel for the parties. ”
14-A. Similarly, in Assistant Excise
Commissioner, Kottayam v. Esthappan
4
Cherian , there is profusion of judicial authority
qua the proposition that a rule or law cannot be
4
Excise Commr. v. Esthappan Cherian , (2021) 10 SCC 210
16 26
Page of
W.P.(C) No.17170 of 2019
construed as retrospective unless it expresses a
clear or manifest intention, to the contrary.
14-B. Further the Apex Court in the cases of V.
5
Vincent Velankanni v. Union of India and
Director General of Foreign Trade v. Kanak
6
Exports held that government memorandum/
government orders are prospective unless
expressly made retrospective.
15. In view of the discussion above, it is
beyond any doubt that the Government
Resolution at Annexure-4 has a prospective effect
and said Government Resolution, which is the
basis for rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner for
allotment in the present, nowhere speaks about
its retrospective effect/operation.
16. Another important facet requiring
consideration is the doctrine of
“legitimate
5
V. Vincent Velankanni v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2642
6
DGFT v. Kanak Exports , (2016) 2 SCC 226
17 26
Page of
W.P.(C) No.17170 of 2019
expectation” of the Petitioner vis-à-vis the grant
of allotment/lease in question.
Admittedly as it borne out from the record the
Department of Tourism and Culture(Tourism),
Government Of Orissa, vide letter dated
18.11.2010 (part of Annexure-1), accorded in-
principle approval for allotment of land, i.e., Plot
No. B/12/A corresponding to revenue plot no.
6(P), Rev. Khata No. 474/1607, Mouza– Patia,
measuring Ac. 0.092 under Chandaka Industrial
Area, in favour of the Petitioner for establishment
of a hotel, lodge and boarding unit.
Thereafter such allotment was withdrawn. Such
cancellation/withdrawal of allotment of land was
assailed by the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 9006 of
2014, which was disposed of by Order dated
09.04.2019(Annexure-6) directing the petitioner
to file a detailed representation before the CMD,
IDCO making an offer to take a piece of land for
18 26
Page of
W.P.(C) No.17170 of 2019
opening of the hotel by paying the present market
value for the same, taking into account the stand
of IDCO, that it (IDCO) had no objection to
allotting the plot to the Petitioner for
opening a hotel, provided he agreed to pay
the prevailing market rate .
16-A. On the basis of such Order, in the light of
the stand of IDCO, the Petitioner filed his
representation on 26.04.2019, and by the
impugned order dated 09.08.2019 (Annexure-4),
the said representation, at the cost of brevity, is
reiterated, was rejected, inter alia, on two
grounds:
(i) the Notification of the R & DM
Department dated 13.03.2018, which
stipulated that allotment for hotels has to
be made through the auction method; and
(ii) the pendency of a case before the
NGT vide O.A. No. 100/2017/EZ.
19 26
Page of
W.P.(C) No.17170 of 2019
17. While the allotment letter in 2010 vide
Annexure-3 was issued to the petitioner the
Notification dated 13.03.2018 was not in vogue
and since the said notification is never intended to
be retrospective, the same cannot take away the
right of the petitioner for allotment of land
especially keeping in view the fact that allotment
was unilaterally withdrawn by the authorities and
such allotment could not fructify for the reasons
solely attributable to the opposite parties.
17-A. In form of document obtained through
RTI it is also on record that several plots have
been identified in and around the Petitioner’s plot
for the purpose of the Hotel Industry. In terms of
the Judgment dated 25.03.2022 passed by the
Hon’ble National Green Tribunal, that there is no
embargo on allotment of land in question and
only a direction has been issued for carrying out
20 26
Page of
W.P.(C) No.17170 of 2019
compensatory afforestation, to be undertaken by
IDCO.
18. The facts at hand makes out a clear case of
promissory estoppels vis-à-vis the opposite party
IDCO to give effect to the legitimate expectation of
the petitioner who was all along ready and willing to
perform his part and taken steps pursuant to the
conscious act and decision of the IDCO for
allotment in his favour.
19. While dealing with law regarding promissory
estoppels and principles of legitimate expectation,
the Apex Court in Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. v.
7
Union of India reiterated that promissory
estoppel applies in equal force to the government.
Paragraph- 182 relevant in the context of the
present lis, is quoted hereunder:-
182. In my view, the following principles must
“
guide a court where an issue of applicability of
promissory estoppel arises:
7
Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. v. Union of India, (2012) 11 SCC 1
21 26
Page of
W.P.(C) No.17170 of 2019
182.1. Where one party has by his words or
conduct made to the other a clear and
unequivocal promise which is intended to create
legal relations or affect a legal relationship to
arise in the future, knowing or intending that it
would be acted upon by the other party to whom
the promise is made and it is, in fact, so acted
upon by the other party, the promise would be
binding on the party making it and he would not
be entitled to go back upon it, if it would be
inequitable to allow him to do so having regard
to the dealings which have taken place between
the parties, and this would be so irrespective of
whether there is any pre-existing relationship
between the parties or not.
182.2. The doctrine of promissory estoppel may
be applied against the Government where the
interest of justice, morality and common fairness
dictate such a course. The doctrine is applicable
against the State even in its governmental,
public or sovereign capacity where it is necessary
to prevent fraud or manifest injustice. However,
the Government or even a private party under
the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be
asked to do an act prohibited in law. The nature
and function which the Government discharges is
not very relevant. The Government is subject to
the rule of promissory estoppel and if the
22 26
Page of
W.P.(C) No.17170 of 2019
essential ingredients of this doctrine are
satisfied, the Government can be compelled to
carry out the promise made by it.
182.3. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is
not limited in its application only to defence but it
can also furnish a cause of action. In other
words, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can
by itself be the basis of action.
182.4. For invocation of the doctrine of
promissory estoppel, it is necessary for the
promisee to show that by acting on promise
made by the other party, he altered his position.
The alteration of position by the promisee is a
sine qua non for the applicability of the doctrine.
However, it is not necessary for him to prove any
damage, detriment or prejudice because of
alteration of such promise.
182.5. In no case, the doctrine of promissory
estoppel can be pressed into aid to compel the
Government or a public authority to carry out a
representation or promise which is contrary to
law or which was outside the authority or power
of the officer of the Government or of the public
authority to make. No promise can be enforced
which is statutorily prohibited or is against public
policy.
182.6. It is necessary for invocation of the
doctrine of promissory estoppel that a clear,
23 26
Page of
W.P.(C) No.17170 of 2019
sound and positive foundation is laid in the
petition. Bald assertions, averments or
allegations without any supporting material are
not sufficient to press into aid the doctrine of
promissory estoppel.
182.7. The doctrine of promissory estoppel
cannot be invoked in abstract. When it is sought
to be invoked, the court must consider all
aspects including the result sought to be
achieved and the public good at large. The
fundamental principle of equity must forever be
present to the mind of the court. Absence of it
must not hold the Government or the public
authority to its promise, assurance or
representation
.”
20. In the light of the judicial pronouncements
adverted to hereinabove and the uncontroverted
assertion of the Petitioner that plots in and around
the area for which the Petitioner had made his
application have been allotted for industrial
purposes, including hotel industry, this Court is
persuaded to hold that the impugned order at
Annexure-4 rejecting the Petitioner’s claim for
allotment is liable to be set aside.
24 26
Page of
W.P.(C) No.17170 of 2019
The same is accordingly quashed.
21.
The Opposite Party–IDCO is directed to act
in terms of Allotment Letter No. 22997 dated
18.11.2010 (Part of Annexure-1), extracted
hereunder,
subject to the Petitioner offering the prevailing
market value as on the date of pronouncement of
this judgment, so as to ensure that there is no
loss to the public exchequer.
25 26
Page of
W.P.(C) No.17170 of 2019
22. Within three months of the Petitioner
offering the prevailing market value of the land in
question, the conveyance deed in his favour shall
be executed, subject to payment of the requisite
stamp duty and registration charges and other
Govt. dues, if any.
23. Accordingly, the writ petition stand
disposed of. Costs made easy.
(V. Narasingh)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated the 24 June, 2026 /Soumya
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 29-Jun-2026 20:26:36
26 26
Page of
W.P.(C) No.17170 of 2019