IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK , W.A. No.1359 of 2025 In the matter of an Appeal under Clause-10 of Letters Patent Appeal under Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1947 and from the judgment dated 16.05.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.1087 of 2025. … M/s. Abhirav Industries Private Limited, Raipur, Chhatisgarh & having its Branch Office at Forum Mall-208, 2nd Floor, Civil Township, Rourkela, District- Sundergarh … Appellant -versus- 1.State of Odisha, represented through its Chief Secretary, Government of Odisha. 2.Industrial Promotion & Investment Corporation of Odisha (IPICOL), represented through its Principal Secretary. 3.Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (IDCO), represented through its Chairman. 4.Chief General Manager (LAND), IDCO, Bhubaneswar. 5.Land Officer, IDCO, Bhubaneswar. 6. Tahasildar, Koira. 7. State Level Single Window p. 2 Clearance Authority, represented through its Executive Director at IPICOL House, Bhubaneswar. 8.M/s.Rungta Mines Limited, represented by its Director Sri Pranaya Kumar Deo. … Respondents Advocates Appeared in this case For Appellant - M/s. Saswat Ku. Acharya, Abhisek Agarwal, Abhijeet Agarwal & J. Joshi, Advocates For Respondents - Mr.S.B. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Advocate for R.1 & 6 Mr.S.K.Padhi, Sr. Advocate Along with Mr.Piyush Panda & Swostik Nayak, Advocates for R.2 Mr.P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate Along with Mr.Pronoy Mohanty, S.N. Dash, S.K. Sahu, K.T. Mudali, P.Pani & K., Panda Advocaes for R.3 to 5 Mr.A.K.Parija, Sr. Advocate Along with M/s.D.Mishra, T. Patnaik, N.Dadhichi, P. Mishra, Advocates for R.8 … CORAM : MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing : 03.07.2026 : Date of Judgment: 06.07.2026 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PER KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J. This Intra-Court Appeal seeks to lay challenge to a learned Single Judge‟s judgement dated 16.05.2025, whereby Appellant‟s p. 3 WP(C) No.1087 of 2025 has been negatived. In the said Petition, it had called in question the letter dated 18.10.2024 issued by OP No.1 at Annexure-25, whereby Appellant had been informed to make a fresh “submission of alternative land parcel for filing of lease/acquisition proposal of land measuring Ac.56.00 in Village-Bhanjapali under Koira Tahasil in the district of Sundergarh”. To put it succinctly, the said letter tells the Appellant that the land in respect of which Appellant had made a claim, has already been earmarked for Respondent No.8-Company and therefore, it may make a proposal for alternate land. 2. After service of notice, the Respondents having entered appearance through their counsel, resisted the Appeal making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed. They submitted that the scope of Intra Court Appeal is restrictive and therefore, a deeper examination of the matter is neither permissible nor warranted especially when the learned Single Judge, in his accumulated wisdom, having considered all aspects of the matter, has entered the impugned judgment. They also told us that when a just result has been brought about by the letter in question followed by the said judgment, the Appellant cannot have grievance to ventilate in law. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Parija appearing for contesting Respondent No.8-Company added that the Appellant had no cause of action for the Writ Petition and had no choate cause of action for maintaining the Appeal when his specific case is that the lands earmarked for the Industries in question do not overlap. 3. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having perused the Appeal papers, we are inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the p. 4 matter as under and for the following reasons, without any prejudice to the Respondent No.8-Company: 3.1. The case at hand, as unanimously submitted at the Bar, is broadly governed by the provisions of The Orissa Industries (Facilitation) Act, 2004 and the Orissa Industries (Facilitation) Rules, 2005, the said Rules having been amended in 2015 inter alia introducing Rule 2A. It is not in dispute that the Appellant-Company has no industrial establishment in the State of Odisha, although it has in other States. Therefore, it can be safely stated that the status of Appellant-Company is more of an entrepreneurial than a running Industry unlike the 8th Respondent- Company. As between the parallel claims, therefore, the Respondent No.8-Company will have a preferential treatment more particularly when it needs the subject land for tail end use, all parameters having been substantially similar qua the Appellant-Company as rightly contended by learned Senior Advocates Mr.S.K.Padhi & Mr.A.K.Parija. This inarticulate premise, it cannot be denied, has animated the impugned judgment. 3.2. THUMBNAIL DESCRIPTION OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT & THE RULES: 3.2.1. This Appeal essentially relates to definition clauses namely, clauses-g, j & m, sub-sections 1 & 5 of 2004 Act, which intends to facilitate inter alia entrepreneur‟s proposing to start Industry in the State. Section 2(g) defines High Level Clearance Authority to mean a Committee constituted under section 3. It is the State Government which issues constitutive notification under section 3(1). Sub-sections 2, 3 & 4 are activating provisions. Section 2 (j) defines the Nodal Agencies at p. 5 State Level & District Level, as constituted under section 8. This provision prescribes elaborate procedures & processes. Section 2 (m) defines the State Level Single Window Clearance Authority (SLSWCA) as a Committee constituted under section 4. The State Government, which constitutes the Committee by issuing gazette notifications. Sub- section 2 authorizes the Committee to consider the proposals for industrial projects. Sub-section 4 prescribes the procedure, process & functions of this Committee. Sub-section 5 makes the Committee decision final and binding on all concerned Departments/Authorities. 3.2.2. Rule 3 of 2005 Rules prescribes that the Application Forms for establishment of Industry shall be as prescribed in Schedules-I & II. The application has to be made before the Nodal Agency with requisite fees & documents. The Self Certification Form to be furnished by the Applicant shall be in Schedule-III. Sub-Rules 5 & 6 are the check list provisions. Rule 4 prescribes the fees. Rule 5 provides as to how the application shall be examined. Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 5 provides for maintaining the Register of Applications. Rule 6 prescribes the procedure for transaction of business by the Committee and Rule 7 provides for deemed approval. Rule 8 provides for inspection to be conducted by the Committee. Rule 9 provides for review and revision of decisions by the Appellate Authority. Rule 11 empowers the Government to promulgate guidelines for the smooth implementation of 2005 Rules. 3.2.3. The Rules of 2005 have been amended vide Gazette Notification dated 24.08.2015 by inter alia introducing Rule 2A, which is titled „Preliminary Project Assessment application‟. Much is argued by p. 6 learned counsel for the Appellant on sub-Rule 1 of this amended Rule, which has the following texts: “(1) Every applicant who is not in possession of any land or not allotted with land for the purpose of establishment of an Industry or not in possession of land exceeding twenty five percentum of total land required for the project or for other activities, shall apply in Schedule I, before filing of Combined Application Form at Schedule I-A, through the Nodal Agency who shall, after examining the feasibility of the project including assessment of land, allotment thereof and for other utilities, recommend the same to the concerned Competent Authority for approval of the said project…” 3.3. The Appellant, vide letter dated 22.05.2023, requested Tahasildar, Koira, District-Sundergarh to provide field verification report of the land at Bhanjapali village and the Tahasildar vide letter dated 23.05.2023, mentioned about the availability of Government land in the said village. Thereafter, the Appellant on 02.06.2023 submitted the proposal along with feasibility report for establishing a Beneficiation Plant & Pallet Plant at Bhanjapali. True it is that SLSWCA approved the applicant‟s proposal in its 123rd meeting held on 31.10.2023. Admittedly, this is “In Principle Approval” and therefore, obviously is not final. This approval, as obvious from the letter, does not specify any particular land. This is briefly mentioned in para-8 of the impugned judgment. Mr.Padhi is more than justified in telling us that the Tahasildar is not the recommending authority in the statutory scheme and therefore, what he would do, cannot be much banked upon by the Appellant, who has undertaken some reasonable enquiry for his own benefit. The contention that the IPICOL, vide letter dated 02.12.2023, had made recommendation to the IDCO for allotment of subject land in favour of the Appellant would not come handy. Therefore, it cannot be argued that a choate and justiceable right has been created in favour of the Appellant. Page 7 of 13 3.4. The records reveal that on 02.06.2023, the Appellant had applied for 81 acres of land in Block-Koira, District-Sundergarh. The IPICOL recommended the case of the Appellant only for 56 acres of land vide letter dated 02.12.2023. Obviously, this is pursuant to the approval dated 31.10.2023. But, what needs to be noted is that the 8th Respondent- Company‟s application for allotment of land in Bhanjapali was recommended by the HLCA in its 21st Meeting held on 09.01.2020 and it was a case of in Principle Approval for capacity expansion of its integrated steel plant by setting up various Plants and Rolling Mills. The approved enhancement was by 98 acres in Bhanjapali village as against the claim for 125 acres. The SLSWCA, in its 117th Meeting dated 08.05.2023, had granted approval. The SLFC, in its 239th Meeting held on 16.05.2023, had approved the recommendation for 98 acres of additional land subject to complying certain conditions. All this is evidenced by the document at Annexure-A/3 filed along with Counter Affidavit of OP-IDCO. 3.5. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Parija has filed a Comparative Chart of dates on the basis of evidentiary material on record, which becomes handy to the Court for adjudging the priority of claims. The same favours the case of 8th Respondent-Company. For ease of reference, the same is reproduced: COMPARATIVE CHART OF DATES Sl. No. Stage of Application Applicant [Rungta Mines Ltd.] Appellant [Abhirav Industries Ltd.] 1. Submission of the Project proposal in online mode to the nodal agency i.e. IPICOL 27.03.2023/24.04.2023 (Annex L/8, Pg. 138) (Annex M/8, Pg. 139) (In relation to change in project configuration and 02.06.2023 (Annex 5, Pg. 113) (in relation to proposed beneficiation and pellet p. 8 expansion of beneficiation plant to 4.8 MTPA, and additional land requirement of 125 acres) (Only for Kamanda. No mention of Bhanjapali) plant in KOIDA-Tahsil, Dist- Sundargarh) (Categorically only for Bhanjapali) 2. In-principle approval for project by the SLSWCA/HCLA 08.05.2023 [Annex N/8, Pg. 140 @ Pg. 157 (Agenda Item No. 18)] (In relation to change in project configuration and expansion of beneficiation plant to 4.8 MTPA, and additional land requirement of 125 acres) (Only for Kamanda. No mention of Bhanjapali) 31.10.2023 (As reflected in Annex- 10, Pg. 139, Letter dt. 04.11.2023) (in relation to proposed pellet plant in Dist- Sundargarh) (Categorically only for Bhanjapali) 3. Assessment by IPICOL of extent of land requirement based on benchmarking reports and industry standards and recommendation to IDCO. 20.05.2023 [Annex O/8, Pg. 161) (98 acres assessed and approved – applicant directed to submit requisite application with detailed land schedule to land agency i.e. IDCO) (Only for Kamanda. No mention of Bhanjapali) 02.12.2023 (Annex – 15, Pg. 161) (56 acres assessed and approved – applicant directed to submit requisite application with detailed land schedule to land agency i.e. IDCO) (Categorically only for Bhanjapali) 4. Communication by IDCO to the Applicant requesting for submission of documents for scrutiny of land to be allotted. 29.05.2023 [Annex P/8, Pg. 163) (IDCO requests for furnishing of detailed land schedule revenue village map, ROR certified copy, Tracing Cloth Map, Consolidated map of the project and detailed project report for assessment) (Only for Kamanda. No mention of Bhanjapali) 13.12.2023 (Annex – 17, Pg. 165) Note: This was submitted to IPICOL earlier on 06.11.2023 and further on 15.11.2023, which led to IPICOL’s recommendation on 02.12.2023. [See Pg.74-90 of Rejoinder to IPICOL] (Categorically only for Bhanjapali) 5. Application of land agency i.e., IDCO for allocation 06.06.2023 (Annex Q/8, Pg. 165 18.12.2023 (Annex – 18, Pg. 167) p. 9 of land, enclosing detailed land schedule, ROR area demarcated in Revenue Village Map NB: Application to land agency i.e. IDCO submitted in hard copy alone, along with detailed land schedule, RoR, area demarcated in Revenue Village Map, tracing Cloth Map, Consolidated Map of Project and not by online mode (Applicant applied for 98 acres, with detailed land schedule at Villages Bhanjapali and Kusumdihi at Koira Tahasil, Dist- Sundargarh) Note: This letter was submitted Rungta in a hard copy purportedly as a reply to IDCO’s letter dated 29.05.2023 (Pg.250 of WA). In that letter, IDCO asked to give documents relating only for Kamanda. There’s no mention of Bhanjapali. However, in reply dt.6.6.2023 (four days after appellant’s application dt.2.6.2023), Rungta has mysteriously included the name of Bhanjapali. (Applicant applied for 56 acres at Villages Bhanjapali Koira Tahasil, Dist- Sundargarh) Note. This was also submitted to IPICOL earlier on 6.11.2023 and further on 15.11.2023, which led to IPICOL’s recommendation on 02.12.2023. 6. Approval/Rejection by IDCO for allocation of land 13.07.2023 (Annex S/8, Pg. 224) (97 acres of land at Villages Bhanjapali and Kusumdihi allocated, and process for grant of lease initiated with Tahsildar) 29.12.2023 (Annex – 21, Pg. 190) (Rejected on account of earlier allocation of same parcel of in favour of M/s Rungta Mines Ltd., and advise given to submit proposal for alternative land) 3.6. Learned counsel Mr.Acharya appearing for the Appellant- Company strenuously endeavoured to rebut the indelible impression of correctness of the above Comparative Chart furnished by Mr. Parija. Fairness warrants that the Chart with his comments thereon also needs to be reflected: COMPARATIVE CHART OF DATES Sl. No. Stage of Application Applicant [Rungta Mines Ltd.] Appellant [Abhirav Industries Ltd.] 1. Submission of the Project proposal in online mode to 27.03.2023/24.04.2023 (Annex L/8, Pg. 138) 02.06.2023 (Annex 5, Pg. 113) p. 10 the nodal agency i.e. IPICOL (Annex M/8, Pg. 139) (In relation to change in project configuration and expansion of beneficiation plant to 4.8 MTPA, and additional land requirement of 125 acres) (in relation to proposed beneficiation and pellet plant in KOIDA-Tahsil, Dist- Sundargarh) 2. In-principle approval for project by the SLSWCA/HCLA 08.05.2023 [Annex N/8, Pg. 140 @ Pg. 157 (Agenda Item No. 18)] (In relation to change in project configuration and expansion of beneficiation plant to 4.8 MTPA, and additional land requirement of 125 acres) 31.10.2023 (As reflected in Annex- 10, Pg. 139, Letter dt. 04.11.2023) (in relation to proposed pellet plant in Dist- Sundargarh) 3. Assessment by IPICOL of extent of land requirement based on benchmarking reports and industry standards and recommendation to IDCO. 20.05.2023 [Annex O/8, Pg. 161) (98 acres assessed and approved – applicant directed to submit requisite application with detailed land schedule to land agency i.e. IDCO) 02.12.2023 (Annex – 15, Pg. 161) (56 acres assessed and approved – applicant directed to submit requisite application with detailed land schedule to land agency i.e. IDCO) 4. Communication by IDCO to the Applicant requesting for submission of documents for scrutiny of land to be allotted. 29.05.2023 [Annex P/8, Pg. 163) (IDCO requests for furnishing of detailed land schedule revenue village map, ROR certified copy, Tracing Cloth Map, Consolidated map of the project and detailed project report for assessment) 13.12.2023 (Annex – 17, Pg. 165) 5. Application to land agency i.e., IDCO for allocation of land, enclosing detailed land schedule, ROR area demarcated in Revenue Village Map NB: Application to land agency i.e. IDCO is submitted in hard copy alone, along with detailed land schedule, RoR, area demarcated in Revenue Village Map, tracing Cloth 06.06.2023 (Annex Q/8, Pg. 165 (Applicant applied for 98 acres, with detailed land schedule at Villages Bhanjapali and Kusumdihi at Koira Tahasil, Dist- Sundargarh) 18.12.2023 (Annex – 18, Pg. 167) (Applicant applied for 56 acres at Villages Bhanjapali Koira Tahasil, Dist- Sundargarh) p. 11 Map, Consolidated Map of Project (and not by online mode) 6. Approval/Rejection by IDCO for allocation of land 13.07.2023 (Annex S/8, Pg. 224) (98 acres of land at Villages Bhanjapali and Kusumdihi allocated, and process for grant of lease initiated with Tahsildar) 29.12.2023 (Annex – 21, Pg. 190) (Rejected on account of earlier allocation of same parcel of in favour of M/s Rungta Mines Ltd., and advise given to submit proposal for alternative land) Although this Court appreciates the ingenuity of his submission, the same would not yield much milk, the facts being what they are, as vouched by other material on record. 3.7. AS TO WHAT ALTERNATE REMEDY COULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT: 3.7.1. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Company Mr.Acharya is more than justified in submitting that the learned Single Judge is not justified in rejecting the petition of his client in lock, stock & barrel. The letter dated 18.10.2024 that was impugned before him have specifically provided for applying for alternate land. The penultimate & ultimate paragraphs of the said letter have the following texts: “After details scrutiny, it is found that IDCO has already been filed lease proposal of your indentified land with Tahasildar, Koira on behalf of M/s.Rungta Mines Limited for establishment of Industries under Land Bank, Category-A vide this office letter No.21750, Dtd.13.07.2023 and same has been already been intimate by IDCO vide this office letter No.41435, Dtd.29.12.2023 (copy enclosed). In this connection, you are once again requested to submit the alternative land proposal with IDCO for taking necessary action at this end. This is for information & necessary action.” 3.7.2. Mr.Acharya is right in telling us that the learned Single Judge ought to have ascertained the availability of alternate land and directed p. 12 for its allotment on a war footing, should all parameters be satisfied by his client. It is nobody‟s case that no other land is available in village Bhanjapli in and around the portion earmarked for the 8th Respondent- Company. Mr.Mohanty, learned AGA appearing for the Respondent- Tahasildar did not much dispute such availability, regard being had to hugeness of unutilized lands in the vicinity. Some timeline also has to be prescribed for accomplishing the process of consideration at the hands of jurisdictional OPs, as fairly submitted by Mr.Padhi. We agree with this. 3.7.3. It was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the US Supreme Court, who in Davis v. Mills; 194 US 451 (1904), has observed as under: “Constitutions are intended to preserve practical and substantial rights, not to maintain theories…” Litigants approach Constitutional Courts for ventilating their grievances which need to be treated with fairness. If relief, as sought for, cannot be granted, whatever can be accorded as the facts & law would warrant has to be handed to the worthy litigants. Otherwise, the right thinking members of the society would have their faith in judicial process, shaken and that would in the long run affect the administration of justice. In the above circumstances, this Appeal is allowed in part as under: i. The impugned judgment to the extent it upholds the letter dated 18.10.2024 challenged in the Writ Petition is sustained; ii. Liberty is reserved to the Appellant to submit the appropriate proposal for alternate land in terms of letter dated 18.10.2024 wihtin a period of four (4) weeks reckoned from this day; p. 13 iii. A Writ of Mandamus issues to Respondent Nos.1 to 7 to process Appellant‟s claim at various stages for alternate land within an outer limit of three (3) months subject to all just compliances. iv. The culpable delay attributable to concerned of the Respondents shall be viewed very seriously in the next level of legal battle and heavy costs may be levied personally payable by the erring officials. Now, no costs. Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all concerned. (Krishna S. Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Basu Designation: ADDL. DY. REGISTRAR-CUM-ADDL. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY