https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188080 The Court upheld the decision of the State of Orissa to grant a lease over 6.90 acres in Mayurbhanj District to respondent No.4, rejecting the appeal by appellant No.1. The Court found that respondent No.4, who acquired a sick unit engaged in processing the mineral, was prioritized under Rule 6(6-a)(i) for already having set up an industry, while appellant No.1's application lacked eligibility under the specific provisions of the Rules. The judgment emphasized the importance of establishing an industry, even if not operational, at the time of application consideration, and concluded that the High Court's decision was rational and warranted no interference. en-us Fri, 18 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Nov 2016 16:40:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188080 The Court upheld the decision of the State of Orissa to grant a lease over 6.90 acres in Mayurbhanj District to respondent No.4, rejecting the appeal by appellant No.1. The Court found that respondent No.4, who acquired a sick unit engaged in processing the mineral, was prioritized under Rule 6(6-a)(i) for already having set up an industry, while appellant No.1's application lacked eligibility under the specific provisions of the Rules. The judgment emphasized the importance of establishing an industry, even if not operational, at the time of application consideration, and concluded that the High Court's decision was rational and warranted no interference. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188080