THE MANAGING DIRECTOR 0.I.I.D.C., BHUBANESWARversusSARAT CHANDRA PATNAIK AND ANR.

A       THE MANAGING DIRECTOR 0.1.1.D.C., BHUBANESWAR
                            v.
              SARAT CHANDRA PATNAIK AND ANR.

                                   APRIL 30, 1996

B               IK. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

          Olissa I11dustlial I11frastmcture Development C01poratio11 Act, 1980:

            Sections 4, 18, 33, 49-Board co11stituted for tlze ma11ageme11t of the
C   affairs of tlze busi11ess of the Corporatio11-State Government to place a11y
    industrial area or indust1iaf estate under the nianagcn1ent and control of the
    Corporatio11-Plot offered i11 one such i11dustrial arca-Respo11dent-allottee
    i11itial/y accepti11g tlze allotment-Later filing wlit petition for a direction to
    reduce the a111ount fzxed under the lease-Reliance jJ/aced on the intenial
    co1re.":Jpondence ivith the Govenunent-High Court directing to place the
D   matter before tlze Govemment for final decision-Held, High Cowt was not
    n'ght in giving the direction as it would appear that tile Govenunent had
    exceeded its power under S. 18 r/w S.33 of the Act-Re;pondent to pay the
    balance a1nount lvithin six 111onths.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8661 of
E 1996.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 18.8.92 of the Orissa High
    Court in O.J.C. No. 779 of 1989.

          J anaranjan Das for the Appellants.
F
           S.K. Jain for Jain Hansaria & Co. for the Respondents.

           Ms. Kirti Misra for the State.

           The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G
           Leave granted.

           We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

           This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division
H Bench of the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Bench made in OJC No.
                                            108
         MANAGING DIRECTOR, O.II.D.C. v. S.C. PATTANAIK                 109

779/89. Admittedly, the appellant-Corporation was constituted under the A
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 fur-
                                                                             B
therance thereof, certain plots have been offered for allotment in the
industrial areas. The respondent is one on the offerees to accept the plot.
By letter dated August l, 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 C
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 D
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          E
under Section 18 which reads as under :

        "18. The St.ate 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       p
        Corporation shall be bound to follow and act upon such direc-
        tions.11

      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 G
Govetnment to the Corporation in the way for disposal of the land ac-
quired by the Government and transfer to it without undertaking or carry-
ing 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 Govern-
ment have been given power to give special or general directions as a policy H
    110                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   guideline in the management of the Board and also disposal of the proper-
    ties. Otherwise, the very authority gets eroded and it would becone 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
B   sites arc to be disposed of. It would appear that the Government had
    exceeded its power unJer Section 18 read with Section 33 of the Act.

         Accordingly, the High Court was nol right in giving direction to place
    the matter again before the Government. Six months' time is given to the
C   respondent to pay the balance amount.

           The appeal is allowed. No. costs.

    G.N.                                                      Appeal allowed.