The Orissa High Court reaffirmed that writ intervention against eviction from public premises under the OPP(EUO) Act, 1972 is permissible only in cases of manifest illegality, jurisdictional error, or breach of natural justice, not on the merits of allottee grievances. The decision upholds and applies Supreme Court precedent, offering binding guidance for industrial allotment disputes involving IDCO and public authorities.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/3197/2025 of M/S. HARA BRIQUETTE INDUSTRIES, PARADEEP, JAGATSINGHPUR Vs THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JAGATSINGHPUR |
| CNR | ODHC010068032025 |
| Date of Registration | 30-01-2025 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Odisha; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedents on judicial review of statutory eviction |
| Type of Law | Public/Administrative Law; Industrial Land Allotment; Statutory Eviction |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court’s writ jurisdiction in eviction from public premises is confined to correcting jurisdictional errors or violations of natural justice. An allottee given full opportunity of hearing, who fails to utilize the land for the sanctioned public or industrial purpose, cannot invoke equity or compel restoration/continuation of allotment via writ. Even acceptance of payments/settlements by the authority does not override persistent foundational breach or unauthorized use, nor can belated attempts at compliance create a substantive right when the core default is not cured. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner’s industrial plot, allotted in 1982 for a coal briquette unit, was unused for the sanctioned purpose since 2004, with attempts at unauthorized use and unapproved trade change. Despite settlements, payments, and delays, the essential breach persisted, leading to cancellation, eviction orders, and dismissal of statutory appeal; the petitioner sought writ quashing of the orders. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and statutory authorities in Odisha |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; relevant for industrial land/public premises management across jurisdictions |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that judicial review of administrative/statutory eviction under the OPP(EUO) Act is strictly confined to jurisdictional error or procedural impropriety; High Courts will not re-examine merits or extend equity absent clear illegality.
- Payment of arrears, penalties, or one-time settlements cannot revive an allotment if the core industrial breach or unauthorized use persists.
- Policy circulars by land allotting authorities (e.g., IDCO) do not create enforceable rights unless the conditions therein are fully complied with and formal approval is granted.
- IDCO’s acceptance of payments in itself does not amount to restoration nor extinguishes prior breaches if the foundational condition of utilization remains unmet.
- Offers binding precedent for public authorities seeking to reclaim unused, misused industrial plots and for allottees regarding the limitations of relief available in writ.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court circumscribed the scope of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227, emphasizing that only jurisdictional errors or breaches of natural justice warrant intervention—mere erroneous conclusions by the Estate Officer or appellate authority are insufficient.
- Relied on Supreme Court decisions (Municipal Council, Neemuch; Kamla Nehru Memorial Trust) reiterating judicial deference to administrative eviction unless irrationality or explicit injustice is established on Wednesbury grounds.
- Held that the petitioner’s inability to operate the sanctioned industry for an extensive period, coupled with unapproved change of activity and residential use, justified cancellation and eviction under the OPP(EUO) Act.
- Found no evidence of a formal order revoking the initial cancellation; acceptance of settlement payments did not cure the basic violation nor confer any enforceable right.
- IDCO Master Circular clauses (2.7, 2.11) were interpreted as policy guidelines, not mandatory statutes, subject to strict compliance and valid approval—none of which was satisfied by the petitioner.
- Ultimately, underscored that public resources must not be left idle or misapplied and that such sustained breach of allotment conditions extinguishes claims to equity or extraordinary relief.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The impugned orders are illegal, mechanical, and disregard relevant facts and records.
- Cited specific IDCO Circular provisions (Clauses 2.7 and 2.11) as grounds for revocation and continuation of allotment.
- Argued full compliance with payment of dues and penalties warranted restoration.
- Emphasized IDCO’s acceptance of payments and internal recommendations for closure.
- Asserted that new show-cause/cancellation notices constituted a fresh cause, extinguishing earlier cancellation and enforcement actions.
Respondent (Opposite Parties)
- Orders were passed per statutory requirements after due hearing; no violation of natural justice.
- Persistent default, non-utilization, cessation of activity, and unauthorized use justified eviction.
- Payments made by petitioner did not equate to approval for change of trade or project.
- Claims of ongoing industrial activity and employment of women were unsubstantiated.
- Prior financial settlements did not cure foundational breach; equity cannot override statutory compliance.
- Eviction was a lawful sequel to sustained breaches and non-compliance.
Factual Background
The allotment concerned an IDCO industrial plot in Paradeep, originally granted in 1982 for a coal briquette unit. The petitioner failed to operationalize the sanctioned activity after 2004 and made unapproved attempts to change the project’s use. IDCO issued sequential cancellations and show-cause notices (1986, 2015, 2017, 2018), culminating in eviction proceedings under the OPP(EUO) Act. The petitioner argued that payments and compliance entitled it to restoration; IDCO disputed any waiver, and both Estate Officer and Collector ordered eviction, leading to the present writ.
Statutory Analysis
- The OPP(EUO) Act, 1972 was central, particularly Section 5(2) (eviction by Estate Officer) and Section 9 (statutory appeal).
- Judicial review under Articles 226/227 cannot substitute for statutory procedure, nor create substantive rights against lawful action.
- IDCO’s Master Circular (23.07.2016): Clause 2.7 permits change of project activity only with prior approval and penalties; Clause 2.11 allows revocation of cancellation post-complete compliance. Court upheld that these are policy guidelines, not statutory rights absent formal fulfillment of the prescribed terms.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed