M/S.Dlf Ltd. v. State Of Odisha,Chief Secretary,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

WP(C) No.12423 of 2019 (Through Hybrid mode) M/s. DLF Ltd..and another ....

Petitioners Mr. Pinaki Mishra, Senior Advocate Mr. Aditya N. Das, Advocate -VersusState of Odisha and others ....

Opposite Parties Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija, Advocate General Mr. A. K. Sharma, Addl. Govt. Advocate (for O.P. nos.1, 2 and 3) Mr. P. K. Mohanty, Senior Advocate (for O.P. nos.4 and 5)

CORAM:

JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA Order No.

ORDER

23.11.2022 11.

1.

Mr. Mishra, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, impugned is order of cancellation dated 10th July, 2019. By it was cancellation of lease-cumdevelopment agreement dated 10th July, 2007 between Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (OIIDC) and his client. Without prejudice he submits, there are other points of challenge to impugned order.

2.

Mr. Parija, learned senior advocate, Advocate General appears on behalf of opposite party nos.1, 2 and 3 and submits in fairness, in view of allegations of violation of principles of

natural justice the matter be remitted for hearing and adjudication by opposite party no.5. Mr. Mohanty, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of opposite party nos.4 and 5 and adopts submission made by Mr. Parija.

3.

Impugned order is set aside and quashed. The matter is restored to opposite party no.5, for consideration and decision. Mr. Parija submits, date be fixed for appearance by petitioners before the authority. Mr. Mishra submits, any date can be fixed.

4.

Petitioners or their representatives will present themselves before opposite party no.5 on 14th December, 2022 at 3.00 P.M. It goes without saying that the authority, if necessary, may require further hearing. It is expected that a decision will be taken thereupon and informed to petitioners by three weeks thereafter.

5.

The interim order of status quo will continue till two weeks after petitioners have been informed of the decision. It is made clear that we have not gone into merits of the controversy. Hence, petitioners must be ready to present their case before the authority on the appointed date and time. 6.

The writ petition is disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge (S. K. Mishra) Judge RKS