Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 152 (ORI)

Ganesh Sponge (Pvt. ) Ltd. v. State of Odisha

2016-02-23

B.P.RAY

body2016
JUDGMENT B.P. RAY, J. - In the present writ petition, petitioner No. 1, M/s. Ganesh Sponge (Pvt.) Ltd., which is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, challenges the order dated 19.08.2014 passed by the E.I.C.-Cum-Special Secretary to Government in Water Resources Department rejecting its representation dated 7.7.2014 filed for waiving of penalty for consumption of ground water (Annexure-26) and the demand notice dated 9.9.2014 issued by the Executive Engineer, Angul Irrigation Division, O.P.3, directing it to deposit the fees assessed towards water consumption in shape of demand draft payable at S.B.I., Angul in the office of the said Executive Engineer, failing which action as deemed under the provisions of the Act and Rules would be taken against it (Annexure-28). A further prayer has also been made to direct the opposite party-authorities to forthwith execute an agreement with the petitioners for drawal of surface water from Nandira Nala. 2.Brief facts, as delineated in the writ petition, reveals that the petitioner –Company established a unit for manufacture of sponge iron and other allied materials at Krushnachandrapur in the district of Angul. As for the purpose of production of sponge iron as well as construction of the factory and residential colonies water is necessary, the petitioner-Company applied the State Government for supply of water for the said purpose from Derjang Project and applied for permission to draw water from Derjang Project. It is worthwhile to mention here that by letter dated 24.8.2006 under Annexure-1, O.P.3 sought information from the petitioner-Company as to drawal of water from natural source/underground source as per the enclosed proforma as desired by the higher authority. The aforesaid letter was responded to by the petitioner-company on 5.10.2006, vide Annexure-2, with a detailed information and an application for drawal of water for industrial/municipal supply along with the feasibility report. It appears from the said letter that the petitioner-Company was registered under the Factories Act, 1948 and a consent order had been issued by the State Pollution Control Board in favour of the petitioner-Company under the Air Act and Water Act respectively. The said application was also detailed showing phase-wise requirement of water. The petitioner-Company had deposited the water cess towards consumption of ground water by it for the purpose of civil construction of the plant, vide Annexure-3, which was duly received by the Executive Engineer, O.P. 3. The said application was also detailed showing phase-wise requirement of water. The petitioner-Company had deposited the water cess towards consumption of ground water by it for the purpose of civil construction of the plant, vide Annexure-3, which was duly received by the Executive Engineer, O.P. 3. On 6.7.2007, O.P. 3 issued a demand notice for an amount of Rs. 12042/- towards cess for drawing water from Government water sources for use in its industrial establishment from January, 2005 to 31.3.2007, which was also deposited by the petitioner-Company. Thereafter, on 15.10.2007, the petitioner-Company approached the Regional Director, Central Ground Water Board, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, seeking permission to it to draw a further quantity of 750 Kilo Litres of water per day from ground water source for use in its plant. It is worthwhile to mention here that on 14.10.2008, O.P.3 also raised a further demand, which was duly satisfied. 3.While the matter stood thus, and the petitioner Company was drawing ground water with the knowledge of the authorities, demands raised were being satisfied by the petitioner-Company. On 19.3.2009 the Executive Engineer, O.P. 3 addressed the Chief Engineer to permit the petitioner-Company to made payment of water rate as usual for a further period of three months since the application of the petitioner-Company before the Central Ground water Authority, O.P. 4 for obtaining N.O.C. was pending consideration. Ultimately, on 19.05.2009 the Central Ground Water Authority, O.P.4 granted N.O.C. in favour of the petitioner-Company permitting it to draw ground water up to 640 m3 per day for a period of five years or till the area remained under safe category, vide Annexure-8. On 24.1.2011, O.P.3 intimated the petitioner-Company to apply the Collector-cum- Chairman, District Evaluation Committee as per the new guidelines and directed to contact him at his office for discussion and for the first time asked it to install a flow meter. On the next date, i.e., 25.1.2011, the petitioner-Company in compliance with the direction submitted an agreement in ‘K’ From for supply of ground water for the purpose of industrial and domestic use in its plant and on 2.2.2011 the petitioner-Company installed a flow meter in its plant, which was also certified by the Legal Metrology Department with its stamp. On the next date, i.e., 25.1.2011, the petitioner-Company in compliance with the direction submitted an agreement in ‘K’ From for supply of ground water for the purpose of industrial and domestic use in its plant and on 2.2.2011 the petitioner-Company installed a flow meter in its plant, which was also certified by the Legal Metrology Department with its stamp. On 21.5.2011, O.P.3 confirmed the petitioner-Company that the draft agreement submitted by it had been approved by the Chief Engineer & Basini Manager, Brahmani Right Basin, Dhenkanal with a direction that the same would be executed for a period of six months only. The reason for granting of permission for drawal of water only for six months was not known to the petitioner-Company while it had applied for drawal of water on permanent basis. The petitioner-Company was astonished to see another restriction amongst three other conditions that it would stop drawal of ground water for production purpose, to which it objected, vide Annexure-13. 4.It is worthwhile to mention here that on 23.11.2011, vide Annexure-14, O.P.3 informed the petitioner –Company that it had accepted the deposit of Rs. 2,93,760/- towards water rate for a period of six months in advance and directed it to stop drawal of ground water and to switch over to surface water. According to the petitioner-Company, the opposite parties were well aware of the fact that the petitioner-Company was drawing water from the ground source for the purpose of running its unit. According to the petitioner-Company, the aforesaid restriction letter was misconceived because of the reason that O.Ps. 1 to 3 with eyes open allowed the petitioner-Company to draw water from ground source for the purpose of running its industrial unit, for which it had paid the demanded amount and O.Ps. 1 to 3 had accepted the same. According to the petitioner-Company, the restriction was illegal and it strongly objected to that, vide its letter dated 5.12.2011 indicating therein that it had applied for drawal of surface water, vide its letter issued as back as 29.5.2006 to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government from downstream of Derjang Dam, which is approximately five kilometers from its factory but during 48th W.A.C. meeting held on 11.2.2007, its proposal for drawal of water from Derjang downstream was rejected. After such rejection, the petitioner-Company made a proposal for drawal of ground water, whereupon, it was directed by O.P.3 to submit N.O.C. from the Regional Director, Central Ground Water Board with recommendation from the District Industries Centre for use of water from sub-soil water source. According to the petitioner-Company, the said directions were complied with and N.O.C. from the Central Ground Water Board, Government of India, was submitted to O.P.3 along with recommendation of the General Manager, D.I.C., Angul, vide letter dated 21.5.2009. The further case of the petitioner-Company is that though it had applied for allocation of surface water, the opposite parties have not yet allowed the same and in such event, there was no alternative on the part of the petitioner-Company than to depend upon the ground water. The use of ground water by the petitioner-Company is within the full knowledge of the authorities and demands were being paid as and when raised as per the drawal of water. Further it is mentioned in Annexure-15, as indicated by the learned counsel for the petitioner-company that the petitioner-Company has applied for allocation of surface water from another source, i.e., Nandira Nala, which has been forwarded to the Superintending Engineer, Angul Irrigation Circle, Angul for consideration requesting to allow it to draw the ground water for running its industry, which has been established in the year 2005, till its approval for drawing surface water from Nandira Nala. 5.To the surprise of the petitioner-Company on 27.02.2013, O.P.3 slapped a notice raising penal demand to a tune of Rs. 57,43,370/- in terms of Clause -19 of the Orissa Irrigation Rules on the allegation of unauthorized drawal of ground water for drinking and civil construction and the same was directed to be paid within a period of one month, failing which a compound interest @ 2% would be charged as per the O.P.D.R. Rules, 1962, vide Annexure-17. Further on 25.4.2013, another demand was raised to a tune of Rs. 61,40,075/- in terms of Clause -19 of the Irrigation Rules for alleged unauthorized drawal of ground water for the same reasons, as indicated in Annexure-18. Further on 25.4.2013, another demand was raised to a tune of Rs. 61,40,075/- in terms of Clause -19 of the Irrigation Rules for alleged unauthorized drawal of ground water for the same reasons, as indicated in Annexure-18. 6.A representation was made to O.P.3 by the petitioner-Company against such demands on 15.1.2014 with a request to re-consider its case, so far as it relates to imposition of penalty, as the petitioner-company was ready and willing to execute the agreement and it was due to inaction of the O.P. –authorities, the agreement had not been executed and added to that, the petitioner-Company also drew attention of the authorities to the fact that it has never defaulted in payment of the demands made from time to time by the authorities. At the same time, according to the petitioner-Company, it has brought to the notice of the authorities that it was not liable to pay any penalty because of the reason that the entire drawal of water could not be construed to be unauthorized, as the same was made within the knowledge of the authorities, who had raised demand for the same, had received the payment, had fixed the flow meter and had cooperated with the petitioner-Company for running of the industry by facilitating drawal of water. But the representation of the petitioner-Company went unheeded and no order was passed thereon. Further, O.P.3 on 19.12.2013 again raised a demand to a tune of Rs. 86,23,098/- for the same violation, i.e., Clause-19 of the terms and conditions of the agreement for alleged unauthorized drawal of ground water, vide Annexure-20. Again on 21.1.2014, a successive demand notice was issued to a tune of Rs. 87,07,741/- on the same ground, vide Annexure-21. On such background, the petitioner-Company on 24.1.2014 made a representation to O.P.1 Principal Secretary to Government in Water Resources Department, indicating the difficulties faced by it. No order/communication thereon having been received by the petitioner-Company, it issued a reminder, where after on 5.6.2014 the E.I.C.-cum-Special Secretary to Government with reference to the petitioner’s reminder dated 31.5.2014 communicated the fact of rejection of the representation of the petitioner-Company. The said order of rejection is annexed as Annexure-24 to the writ petition. No order/communication thereon having been received by the petitioner-Company, it issued a reminder, where after on 5.6.2014 the E.I.C.-cum-Special Secretary to Government with reference to the petitioner’s reminder dated 31.5.2014 communicated the fact of rejection of the representation of the petitioner-Company. The said order of rejection is annexed as Annexure-24 to the writ petition. 7.Learned counsel for the petitioner-Company drew attention of the Court to the order of rejection dated 5.6.2014, vide Annexure-24, wherein it is stated that as the drawal of water was totally unauthorized, penalty had been imposed as per the provisions of Orissa Irrigation Act and Rules amended from time to time and had further directed the petitioner-Company to clear all the arrears, after which its case for drawal of surface water from Nandira Nala would be taken up as per the recommendation of the W.A.C. He submitted that the said decision taken on the representation of the petitioner-Company is neither a speaking one nor is there any reference to the ground taken in the representation by the petitioner-Company. According to him, the letter/order, vide Annexure-24 is nothing but to force the petitioner-Company to pay the penalty illegal demanded before decision is taken regarding drawal of surface water from Nandira Nala. This is meant to coerce the petitioner-Company to pay huge amount of money in order to get water and failure to do so will lead to closure of the industry as it will not get water to run the same. With this, learned counsel for the petitioner-Company submitted that a lofty picture of industrialization in Odisha being promoted by the State Government, the petitioner-Company came up to Odisha to establish an industry and has already established the industry in question and not only the petitioner-company but also the State Government through its Taxing authorities, Electricity authorities etc. have gained profit due to establishment of this industry besides employment opportunity having been created but it is getting no water to run its industry and is forced to fight out the lis before Court for running its industry. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Company drew attention of the Court to the fact that initially it was asked to draw water from Derjang Dam, which was subsequently changed and now the proposal for drawal of surface water from Nandira Nala is pending with the State Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Company drew attention of the Court to the fact that initially it was asked to draw water from Derjang Dam, which was subsequently changed and now the proposal for drawal of surface water from Nandira Nala is pending with the State Government. At the same time, the petitioner-Company has been forced to pay penalty, payment of which will bring insurmountable financial burden to the petitioner-Company leading to closure of the industry rendering many workers jobless and it would be neither profitable to the State nor to the petitioner-Company. The petitioner-Company has never violated any direction of the opposite parties so far as drawal of water is concerned. While the petitioner-Company was not able to draw water from the surface source and on the other hand, it was allowed to draw water from the ground source since its inception and at a belated stage, O.P.3 construing it to be an unauthorized drawal imposed penalty on the petitioner-Company. According to the petitioner-Company, no penalty can be imposed on the petitioner-Company without an opportunity of hearing being given to the petitioner-Company. 8.Learned counsel for the petitioner-Company further drew attention of this Court to Clause-19 of the agreement as to the recourse of the opposite parties to impose penalty could not have been pressed into service for the reason that the agreement has not been executed till date and the petitioner-Company is running the industry since 2005 in full swing with the knowledge of the authorities. Further the petitioner-Company filed ‘K’ Form with the authorities signed by it, but the said agreement has never been executed till date. According to him, as no agreement has been entered into among the parties till date, the same cannot be construed to be a contract within the meaning of Section 27 of the Contract Act. Hence, Clause-19 of the agreement, basing upon which the penalty has been imposed, is illegal and not tenable in the eye of law. 9.A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of O.Ps 1 to 3, basing upon which learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the impugned demand is legal and the demand has been raised due to the reason of drawal of water by the petitioner-Company without any agreement and unauthorisedly having dug the bore well and opened well inside the factory premises for drawing ground water. According to the learned Additional Government Advocate, the petitioner-Company being an industrial unit was well aware that for drawal or lifting of water from Government source, it was required to comply with various provisions of the Irrigation Act, Orissa Irrigation Rules, 1961 and the amendments made vide Orissa Irrigation (Amendment) Rules, 2010. According to him, though the petitioner-Company applied for allocation of 0.25 cusec of water from Derjang Reservoir for its proposed plant, neither the I.P.I.C.O.L. nor the D.I.C., Angul had recommended for water allocation, for which the Water Allocation Committee in its 48th meeting held on 11.12.2007 felt that it was not possible to provide water to the industry from Derjang Reservoir. The petitioner-Company was drawing water without any valid agreement in consonance with the Rules in Force. As such, water tax demand imposing penal charges on drawal of water from January, 2005 to January, 2013 was raised and served on the petitioner-Company. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner-Company that the opposite parties were aware of such drawal of water, as the petitioner-Company was paying the demand made on the basis of drawal of water from time to time was countered by the learned Additional Government Advocate for O.Ps. 1 to 3, who submitted that the petitioner-Company has given an undertaking to pay the penalty, if imposed in future. According to the counter affidavit, the demand raised under Clause-19 of the Orissa Irrigation (Amendment) Rules, 2010 is neither illegal nor arbitrary. The sum and substance of the counter affidavit leads to the fact that the petitioner-Company drew water for drinking and construction activities from January, 2005 to May, 2009 without any permission of the concerned authorities by digging open well, water pond and installing bore well inside the plant. As per the C.G.W.A. Guidelines, the District Level Evaluation Committee was formed under the Charimanship of the District Collector & other members to receive the project and evaluate the proposals for ground water clearance. Such Committee has to recommend the quantity of water to the Government after obtaining the permission. The petitioner-Company has not executed any agreement for drawal of water from ground source for production purpose though the draft agreement was approved by the Chief Engineer & Basin Manager for construction purpose. Such Committee has to recommend the quantity of water to the Government after obtaining the permission. The petitioner-Company has not executed any agreement for drawal of water from ground source for production purpose though the draft agreement was approved by the Chief Engineer & Basin Manager for construction purpose. So far as the letter of the petitioner-Company dated 20.8.2007 is concerned, in paragraph-3 of the Counter affidavit, it is indicated that the same was disposed of as the imposition of penalty was legal and was as per the Rules. In the counter affidavit, there is no denial on the part of the authorities that the petitioner-Company had submitted a draft agreement and had deposited the required money towards water rate for a period of six months in advance but no agreement has been entered into. It was submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate for O.Ps. 1 to 3 that non-execution of the agreement was due to non-cooperation of the petitioner-Company. But there is nothing on record to show that O.Ps. 1 to 3 have ever called upon the petitioner-Company to enter into an agreement. 10.In the aforesaid background, I have to consider whether the penalty imposed in not legal, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner-Company is running the industry in full swing must be within the knowledge of all the authorities, along with other functionaries of the State like Electricity Department, Labour Department, Factory’s Inspector, etc. It is evident from the conduct of O.Ps. 1 to 3 that they were aware of the fact that the petitioner-Company was drawing ground water as it was not permitted to draw the surface water till date. 11.Annexure-12, which is a letter dated 21.5.2011 issued by the Executive Engineer, O.P.3, directing the petitioner-Company to pay water charges for a period of six months shows that the draft agreement was approved by the Chief Engineer and Basin Manager. It is surprising to note that when the authorities were aware of the fact that the petitioner-company’s factory was running in full swing since 2005 by utilizing ground water paying usual charges there for, asking it to enter into an agreement for a period of six months for drawal of water only for the purpose of construction is totally due to non-application of mind and a ridiculous proposal. The construction was not continuing till 2011, as indicated in the documents annexed to the writ petition so also in the documents issued by different authorities. Hence, entering into an agreement for the purpose of construction in the year 2011 is totally uncalled for, as a full-fledged Company cannot execute an agreement to show that the Company cannot execute an agreement to show that the Company in at the stage of construction and it needs water. That apart, this agreement is detrimental to the interest of the petitioner-Company, as it cannot use water for the purpose of running the industry when it has not been facilitated with a clearance for drawal of water from surface source. 12.Rule 23-A of the Orissa Irrigation Rules, which was inserted by way of amendment on and from 4.10.2010 deals with drawal of water from Government water source and the procedure therefor. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 23-A of the said Rules provides for prosecution for unauthorized use of water from Government source. At no point of time, recourse of such provision was taken up by the authorities. Sub-section (5) of Section 20-A of the Orissa Irrigation Act, 1959 provides for a penal provision against use of Government water source in contravention of the provision of Section 20-A. That means any contravention to Section 20-A would attract the penalty under Sub-section (5) of Section 20-A. Section 31 of the said Act defines as to what would be termed as “Unauthorised use of water”, relevant portion of which is quoted herein below:- “31. Unauthorised use of law- Water is said to be used in an “unauthorized manner” when it is taken from any irrigation in work outlet or water course in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder or of any order passed by an Irrigation Officer thereunder and its use gives rise to, or may be expected to give rise to, benefits of any kind.” The petitioner-Company will also not come within the mischief of Section 31 of the Act to attract the penal provision of Sub-section (5) of Section 20-A of the Act. 13.In the aforesaid background, in my considered opinion, the matter could have been settled at the threshold had the representation of the petitioner-Company been considered and disposed of by O.P. 1 by a speaking order giving reasons for such rejection. 13.In the aforesaid background, in my considered opinion, the matter could have been settled at the threshold had the representation of the petitioner-Company been considered and disposed of by O.P. 1 by a speaking order giving reasons for such rejection. Having not done so, it requires to examine whether the rejection of the representation is legal in the eye of law and so also the levy of penalty. Apart from all the aforesaid, the matter could have been sorted out had the representation of the petitioner-Company been considered on its own merit and decided by O.P. 1 with a reasoned order instead of being dealt with evasively. Law is well settled by the Hon’ble apex Court that an order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. (See M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. vrs. State of Orissa, 1969(2) SCC 627 ). 14.In the present case, in the counter affidavit of O.Ps. 1 to 3, no where any communication was made with the petitioner-Company showing that there was a deliberate defiance of law and that the petitioner-Company was dishonestly acting against law. On the contrary, the petitioner-Company has at all points of time cooperated with the authorities and in order to run its factory it approached different authorities to get water and with the consent of the authorities, it drew ground water and paid for the same as per the demand raised from time to time. So there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner-Company acted dishonestly and disregarded the direction of the authorities in defiance of law. Rather the entire case would show that from inception of the Company, the authorities were facilitating the petitioner-Company to draw ground water for the purpose of construction and running of the industry. Hence, imposition of penalty from 2005 is arbitrary. Rather the entire case would show that from inception of the Company, the authorities were facilitating the petitioner-Company to draw ground water for the purpose of construction and running of the industry. Hence, imposition of penalty from 2005 is arbitrary. The petitioner-Company has also made a representation against the penalty imposed and demanded, vide Annexure-25. No opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner-Company and the Authority concerned disposed of the said representation in a manner unknown to the established principles of law. In this regard, I may refer certain decisions cited by the petitioner-Company in case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi vrs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 , wherein Hon’ble apex Court has held that although there are no positive words in the statute requiring that the party shall be heard, yet the justice of the common law will supply the omission of the legislature. The principle of audi alteram partem, which mandates that no one shall be condemned unheard, is part of the rules of natural justice. In paragraph-59 it was further clarified that the doctrine of natural justice is applicable to quasi-judicial as well as administrative function because the rule of natural justice is calculated to secure justice or to put it negatively, to prevent miscarriage of justice. In case of Utkal Asbestors Ltd. vrs. Sales Tax Officer, 1997 (I) OLR 571 wherein this Court has held as follows:- “Natural justice is another name for common sense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified canons, but they are principles ingrained into the conscience of men. Natural justice is the administration of justice in a common sense liberal way. Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human values. The administration of justice is to be freed from the narrow and restricted considerations which are usually associated with a formulated law involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is the substance of justice which has to determine its form.” No contrary decision to this was brought to my notice by the learned counsel for opposite parties. 15.This Court by its order dated 29.9.2014 in Misc. Case No. 16695 of 2014 passed the following order:- “…… As an interim measure, it is directed that in case the petitioners deposit a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (thirty lakhs) in three installments pursuant to Annexure-17 dated 27.2.2013 no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners till the next listing. 15.This Court by its order dated 29.9.2014 in Misc. Case No. 16695 of 2014 passed the following order:- “…… As an interim measure, it is directed that in case the petitioners deposit a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (thirty lakhs) in three installments pursuant to Annexure-17 dated 27.2.2013 no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners till the next listing. The first installment of Rs. 10,00,000/- shall be deposited by the petitioners by 8th October, 2014, second installment of Rs. 10,00,000/- by 20th October, 2014 and third installment of Rs. 10,00,000/- by 30 the October, 2014.” This Court has not been informed by either as to whether the aforesaid interim order has been complied with. 16.Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that Annexure-26 has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-Company, which, in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble apex Court, as indicated above, is illegal, and accordingly not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, I quash the order dated 19.8.2014 passed by the E.I.C.- Cum-Special Secretary to Government in Water Resources Department (Annexure-26) and the demand notice dated 9.9.2014 issued by the Executive Engineer, Angul Irrigation Division, O.P.3 (Annexure-28). 17.Accordingly, if the petitioner-Company has paid the amount as per the interim order of this Court dated 29.9.2014 passed in Misc. Case NO. 16695/2014, the said amount shall be adjusted towards the future demand. It is also directed that the petitioner-Company is not liable to pay the demand as per the impugned notice. 18.In my considered opinion, the matter would not have come to this stage had precaution been taken by the authorities right at the inception, i.e., while entering into the M.O.U. Therefore, while parting with the case, it would be proper to direct the authorities as follows:- I) To identify the water source to meet the water requirement of the industry and to incorporate the same in the M.O.U. II) While handing over land to an industry, the water source so identified should be allotted to the industry along with the land by entering into an agreement as per the provisions of the Irrigation Act for the purpose of civil work and construction. III) The Company shall inform the authorities at least three months before trial run of the industry and within a month of receipt of the said information, the State authorities shall enter into an agreement so required and shall provide water for the purpose of running of the industry at least fifteen days from the date of trial run of the industry. All these shall be notified by the appropriate Department and incorporated in the M.O.U. so that the industrialists coming to Odisha will not be made to run from pillar to post at every stage of running the industry and ultimately rendering the policy of industrialization of Odisha and the creation of employment opportunity for the unemployed fruitless. With the aforesaid observation and directions, the writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed.