The
Managing Director, O.I.I.D.C., Bhubaneswar. Vs.
Sarat Chand [1996] INSC 629 (30 April 1996)
Thomas
K.T. (J) Thomas K.T. (J) Punchhi, M.M.
CITATION:
1996 SCC (4) 490 JT 1996 (4) 725 1996 SCALE (4)53
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
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 there under. 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, there fore, 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 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.
Back
Pages: 1 2
