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.