Disposed

M/S.Deepak Steel and v. State

Orissa HC3 Feb 2023WP(C)/11036/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge stayed the certificate proceedings initiated under the OPDR Act pending compliance of a prior Division Bench direction to decide the Petitioner's claim for industrial policy benefits. The authorities were directed to consider the matter within four weeks, while the certificate case was stayed for eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Certificate proceedings stayed for eight weeks; Director of Industries directed to decide pending claim within four weeks.

M/S.Deepak Steel and Vs State — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 11036 of 2014

¶3

M/S Deepak Steel & Power Limited

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Gourimohana Rath, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties Mr.B.P.Tripathy, AGA

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

03.02.2023

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

¶14

2. Heard Mr.G.M.Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.B.P.Tripathy, learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶15

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following relief:

¶16

“ In the facts and under the circumstances stated above, the Hon’ble Court would graciously be pleased to;

¶17

i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ commanding the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 to grant electricity duty exemption to Petitioner’s captive power plant under IPR 2001.

¶18

ii) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ quashing the Certificate Case No.1/2013 initiated u/s.6 of the OPDR Act pending before Opp.Party No.5 as well as the impugned notice dated 30.05.2014 vide Annexure-8.

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

Issue any appropriate order/orders deemed fit in the fact and circumstances of the case.”

¶21

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner’s Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of sponge iron and still in the district of Keonjhar. The Company commenced its commercial production in the year 2006. Accordingly it got registered with the Government and as such it is entitled to get such benefit under the Industrial Policy Resolution (IPR)-2021as has been promised by the concerned department of the Government of Odisha. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that as per the IPR condition the Petitioner’s unit is intended to get certain relaxation so far as electric tariff is concerned. Since the benefit he is entitled to under the IPR was not given, the Petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition bearing W.P.(C) No.22052 of 2013. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.12.2013 disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction that :

¶22

Without expression any opinion on the merits, we direct Opposite Party No.2 to take a decision on the claim of the Petition in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. WE also direct Opp.Party No.4, Collector & District Magistrate-cum-Certificate Officer, Keonjhar to finalise the issue arising out of the show cause notice, after considering the objection of the Petitioner, if any filed.”

¶23

5 . It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that despite the aforesaid direction of the Division Bench of this Court in the earlier Writ Petition, the Collector & District Magistrate-cum-Certificate Officer, Keonjhar, Opposite Party No.4 without complying with the direction given by the Division Bench proceeded with the certificate proceeding. Accordingly, issued a

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

// 3 //

¶26

certificate demanding the entire dues without taking into consideration be benefit the Petitioner is eligible to get under the IPR-2021. Accordingly, challenging the certificate issued and the proceeding initiated under the OPDR Act, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition with the prayer to quash the Certificate Case No.1 of 2013 initiated under Section 6 of the OPDR Act as well as quashing the impugned notice dated 30.05.2014 under Annexure-8.

¶27

Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand submitted that he has no instruction as to whether any decision has been taken pursuant to the direction issued by the Division Bench by order dated 05.12.2013. He further submitted that the Collectorcum-District Magistrate, Keonjhar-Opposite Party No.4 has taken a decision in the proceeding. Accordingly, this Court should not interfere with the impugned order under Annexure-8 and the question of quashing the certificate proceeding does not arise at all.

¶28

On a careful consideration of the factual background as well as the materials placed before this Court, this Court found that the Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WP.(C) No.22052 of 2013 claiming certain benefit under the IPR-2021. A Division Bench of this Court after considering such prayer directing the Director of Industries, Opposite Party No.2 to take a decision on the claim of the Petitioner. Further, a direction was earlier given to the Opposite Party No.4-Collector & District Magistrate, Keonjhar to finalise the issue after considering the objection of the Petitioner. However, nothing has been brought on record to show that either the Opposite Party No.2 has taken a decision as has been directed by this Court or Opposite Party No.4 has considered the objection filed

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

// 4 //

¶31

by the Petitioner. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the proceeding further in Certificate Case No.01 of 2013 without complying with the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court could not be in the larger interest of justice.

¶32

Accordingly, the Certificate Proceeding initiated pursuant to Notice dated 13.02.2013 under Annexure-7 shall remain stayed for a period of eight weeks from today. Further the Opposite Party No.2 is directed to consider the matter in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench in W.P.(C) No. 22052 of 2013 vide order dated 05.12.2013 within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. In the event a decision has already been taken then this order shall not be given effect to. It is open for the Opposite Party No.4 to proceed with the Certificate Proceeding. Further in the event if a decision is not taken the same shall be taken as has been directed hereinabove. It is open for the Petitioner to file a fresh show cause before the Opposite Party No.4Collector & District Magistrate-cum-Certificate Officer, Keonjhar basing on any decision to be taken in view of the direction given hereinabove. The authorities are directed to act on production of certified copy of this order.

¶33

With the aforesaid observation the Writ Petition is disposed of .

¶34

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶35

RKS

¶36

Page 4 of 4

M/S.Deepak Steel and v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Deepak Steel and v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nuapada Gram Panchayat Vs State of Orissa

Santosh Ku.Sahoo Vs Govt.of Odisha

Sukanta Chandra Swain Vs State of Odisha

Bijay Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha

Sujata Sarangi Vs Sunil Kumar Bansal, D.G.P, Headquarter, Buxibazar, Cuttack

Prashanta Panigrahi Vs Sridhar Nayak, Secy. Cum Regr. in Charge, Odisha Information Comn., Bbsr.