AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Ms. Vatsala, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Sunil Kumar Misra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 2 and 3.
This writ petition has been preferred with a prayer to quash the order/letter dated 04.07.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 2 and a direction be issued to the Respondent No. 2 to restore the plot no.C-33, Industrial Area Chakeri Site-II, Kanpur admeasuring 1000 square meters, in favour of the petitioner.
On 21.11.2023, the petitioner was allotted a plot no. C-33 in the Industrial Area Chakeri Site-II, Kanpur Nagar, for a premium of Rs. 44,08,047/-. In the allotment letter dated 21.11.2009, it was provided in condition no. 13 that the possession over the land in question had to be taken over after executing a license agreement within 30 days from the date of the allotment or within three months from the date of letter of allotment issued on 21.11.2009. When the petitioner did not get the lease-deed executed then on 22.06.2013, it has been stated in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit that a sum of Rs. 25,85,139.87/- had to be paid by the petitioner if the lease/license agreement had to be executed as per the allotment letter dated 21.11.2009.
Thereafter, when the petitioner did not take action on the letter/communication dated 22.06.2013, another notice was sent to the petitioner by the Notice No. 6589 and it was dated 21.12.2013. By this letter/ communication, a demand was raised of Rs. 27,25,517.24/-. The petitioner thereafter did not take any action and kept complaining about various amenities etc. However, by a circular/letter dated 03.08.2017 another opportunity was given by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "UPSIDC") that such allottees who still were interested to get the lease agreement executed then they could as per the Clause (ख) of the circular/letter dated 03.08.2017 approach the UPSIDC and in this regard they had to submit a notarized affidavit. The circular/letter dated 03.08.2017 is being reproduced hereas under:
उत्तर प्रदेश स्टेट इण्डस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेन्ट कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड श्री मदन चन्द्र कपूर, पुत्र स्व० किशोर चन्द्र कपूर, upsidc पंजीकृत पावती अन्तिम नोटिस बिना किसी द्वेषभाव के क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय कानपुर यू०पी०एस०आई०डी०सी०ति० ए-1/4, लखनपुर, कानपुर-208024 दूरभाष: 0512-2582856 पता:- 31/121, लाठी मोहाल, कानपुर। वेबसाइट: www.upsidc.com सन्दर्भ संख्या 2327 / एसआईडीसी / आरएमके / दिनांक 03-08-17 महोदय,
आप अवगत हैं कि भूखण्ड सं० सी-33 और०के० चकेरी-2 (इण्ड.), कानपुर दिनांक 21.11.2009 को इस आशय से आबंटित किया गया था कि भूखण्ड पर 02 वर्षों में इकाई स्थापित करेंगे। आपके द्वारा उक्त अवधि में भूखण्ड का पट्टाविलेख/कब्जा प्राप्त / भवन मानचित्र स्वीकृत / निर्माण प्रारम्भ / उत्पादन प्रारम्भ नहीं किया गया है, जोकि आबंटन/लीज की शर्तों का स्पष्ट उल्लंघन है एवं जिसके कारण निगम के नियमों में भूखण्ड रिक्त की श्रेणी में आता है।
दिनांक 29.05.2017 को निदेशक मण्डल ने रिक्त भूखण्ड के सम्बन्ध में नीति परिवर्तित कर ली है, जिसके अनुसार :-
(क) रिक्त भूखण्डों के हस्तान्तरण/अन्तिम समय विस्तारण (05 वर्ष पुराने आबंटन में) की सुविधा दिनांक 31.08.2017 के पश्चात् नहीं रहेगी।
(ख) ऐसे आबंटी जो आबंटन की शर्तों में अनुमन्य अवधि में भूखण्ड पर इकाई नहीं लगा पाए हैं। एवं उनके 05 वर्ष पूरे नहीं हुये हैं, अन्तिम 01 वर्ष के समय विस्तारण हेतु आवेदन कर सकते हैं। इस हेतु निर्धारित समय विस्तारण शुल्क एवं अन्य देयों का भुगतान 30.09.2017 के पूर्व करने पर 01 वर्ष का अन्तिम समय विस्तारण स्वतः अनुमोदित हो जाएगा। ऐसे जिन आबंटियों ने पट्टा नहीं कराया है, उन्हें दिनांक 30.09.2017 से पूर्व पट्टा भी कराना होगा।
(ग) ऐसे आबंटी भूखण्ड सरेण्डर कर सकते हैं, जिसमें किये गये विशेष प्राविधान के अनुसार जमा प्रीमियम के अतिरिक्त 60 प्रतिशत जमा व्याज भी वापस हो जायेगा। परन्तु सरेण्डर का यह विकल्प दिनांक 30.09.2017 तक ही उपलब्ध रहेगा।
अतः आपको नोटिस दिया जाता है कि निदेशक मण्डल के उपरोक्त निर्णय के द्वारा आये विकल्पों में से किसी 01 का चुनाव करते हुये दिनांक 31.08.2017 अथवा 30.09.2017 तक कार्यालय में सम्पर्क कर (देयों की जानकारी हेतु) आवश्यक कार्यवाही कर लें अन्यथा आबंटन/पट्टे की शर्तों के अनुसार धनराशि जब्त कर ली जायेगी। कृपया नोट कर लें।
भवदीय, (राकेश झा) क्षेत्रीय प्रबन्धक
In pursuance of the circular/letter dated 03.08.2017, the petitioner submitted an affidavit dated 29.08.2017 expressing its desire to get the time extension for the things which were required to be done as per the allotment dated 21.11.2009. The affidavit which was filed on 29.08.2017 is being reproduced hereas under:
"उत्तर प्र देश UTTAR PRADESH 26AD 912133
AFFIDAVIT
*Regional Manager, U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Kanpur. I, Madan Chand Kapoor son of Late Kishore Chand Kapoor R/o 31/121 Lathi Mohal, Kanpur Nagar, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that:
1.Plot No. C-33 industrial Area Chakeri (II) Industrial measuring 1000 Sq. mtr. Was allotted to me/us.
2.I/We undertake to apply for approval of building plan to the corporation with in one months from the date of approval of time extension of plot in my/our favour and start construction of building as per approval building plan immediately thereafter.
3.We further undertake to complete construction and start production in the within one year.
4.That I am aware that corporation will not allow transfer to vacant plot under any circumstances. I am also aware that the corporation will not allow any further time extension.
5.In case I/We do not complete consecution /Start production within above stipulated period the corporation will have right to cancel the above allotment and take back possession of the plot for which I shall not raise any dispute in any court of law.”
On 16.10.2017, the respondent UPSIDC demanded a sum of Rs. 49,53,226/- for the extension of the time which was being asked for by the petitioner. However, when this amount was not deposited and only complaints were made for the lack of infrastructure, the allotment was cancelled on 13.04.2018 for the non-utilization of the plot. The communication dated 13.04.2018 is being reproduced hereas under:
“उत्तर प्रदेश स्टेट इण्डस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेन्ट कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड upsidc क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, कानपुर पंजीकृत पावती यू०पी०एस०आई०डी०सी०लि० निरस्तीकरण पत्र नवम् तल, ए-1/4, लखनपुर, श्री मदन चन्द्र कपूर, कानपुर-208024 पुत्र स्व० किशोर चन्द्र कपूर, दूरभाष: 0512-2582856 पता:- 31/121, लाठी मोहाल, ई-मेल: [email protected] कानपुर। वेबसाइट: www.upsidc.com सन्दर्भ संख्या 163 / एसआईडीसी / आरएमके / दिनांक 13.04.2018 विषय: भूखण्ड संख्या-सी-33-औ०क्षे० चकेरी-2 (इण्ड.), कानपुर नगर के निरस्तीकरण के सम्बन्ध में। महोदय,
कृपया आप इस कार्यालय के आबंटन पत्र संख्या 3222 दिनांक 21.11.2009 का संदर्भ ग्रहण करने का कष्ट करें जिसके द्वारा भूखण्ड संख्या सी-33-औ०क्षे० चकेरी-2 (इण्ड.), कानपुर नगर (क्षेत्रफल 1000.00 वर्गमीटर) पर "Compound Asafoetida" की इकाई 02 वर्ष में स्थापित करने हेतु आपके पक्ष में किया गया था।
उपरोक्त के सापेक्ष आपके द्वारा आज तक भूखण्ड का पट्टाविलेख निष्पादित कराने के पश्चात् भी कोई ठोस योजना न तो प्रस्तुत किया गया है और न ही अतिरिक्त समय की मांग की गई। इस सम्बन्ध में निगम द्वारा आपको अनेको नोटिस दिये गये, परन्तु फिर भी आप द्वारा भूखण्ड का उपयोग करने की दिशा में कोई कार्यवाही नहीं की गई। इसी क्रम में दिनांक 16.10.2017 को नोटिस द्वारा आपको सूचित किया गया कि यदि आप भूखण्ड उपयोग करने के इच्छुक हैं तो अतिरिक्त समय हेतु आवेदन करने हेतु आपको अंतिम तिथि दिनांक 31.12.2017 है। आप द्वारा इसके बावजूद भी कोई आवेदन नहीं करना, भूखण्ड उपयोग में आपकी अरुचि प्रमाणित करता है।
अतः उपरोक्तानुसार प्रेषित सूचना के अनुसार नीति के अन्तर्गत अतिरिक्त समय दिया जाना सम्भव नहीं होने साथ ही इस हेतु आपके कोई आवेदन नहीं करने एवं आबंटन पत्र की शर्तों का आप द्वारा उल्लंघन करने के, क्रम में आपके पक्ष से आबंटन पत्र संख्या 3222 दिनांक 21.11.2009 निरस्त किया जाता है। भूखण्ड को 30 दिनों के अंदर आबंटन हेतु उपलब्ध कराते हुये किसी वास्तविक इच्छुक उद्यमी के पक्ष में भूखण्ड आबंटन की कार्यवाही की जायेगी।
भवदीय, क्षेत्रीय प्रबन्धक 7. Thereafter, the petitioner to get the order of cancellation revoked, wrote to the Regional Manager of the UPSIDC on 31.12.2018 and considering this letter on 17.01.2019, the UPSIDC wrote to the petitioner that if the petitioner required the allotment to be restored then the time extension charges of Rs. 36,57,652.00/- + the interest of Rs. 15,85,069.00/- and the restoration charges of Rs.4,72,500.00/- had to be paid. The letter dated 17.01.2019 is being reproduced hereas under:
उत्तर प्रदेश स्टेट इण्डस्ट्रियलupsidcक्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, कानपुर डेवलपमेन्ट कारपोरेशन लिमिटेडपंजीकृत पावतीयू०पी०एस०आई०डी०सी०लि० नवम् तल, ए-1/4, लखनपुर, कानपुर-208024 श्री मदन चन्द्र कपूर, पुत्र स्व० किशोर चन्द्र कपूर, पता:- 31/121, लाठी मोहाल, कानपुर नगर। मो० नं० 9415042915दूरभाष: 0512-2582856 ई-मेल: [email protected] वेबसाइट: www.upsidc.com ड्रिंटर: @upsidcrmkanpur सन्दर्भ संख्या 4384 / एसआईडीसी / आरएमके / R.K.G. दिनांक 17.01.2019 विषय: भूखण्ड सं० सी-33 ओ०क्षे० चकेरी-2 (इण्ड.), कानपुर नगर के पुनर्जीवीकरण के सम्बन्ध में। महोदय,
कृपया अपने पत्र दिनांक 31.12.2018 का संदर्भ लेने का कष्ट करें, जिसके द्वारा आपने भूखण्ड सं० सी-33 ओ०क्षे० चकेरी-2 (इण्ड.), कानपुर नगर के निरस्तीकरण के पश्चात् पुनर्जीवीकरण किये जाने हेतु अनुरोध किया है।
उपरोक्त के सम्बन्ध में अवगत कराना है कि निगम के नियमानुसार पुनर्जीवीकरण के आवेदन पर विचारित करने से पूर्व लम्बित देयों का भुगतान अनिवार्य है। भूखण्ड के विरुद्ध बकाया देय समय विस्तारण शुल्क दिनांक 20.11.2019 तक रु० 36,57,652.00 तथा इस पर देय ब्याज दिनांक 31.01.2019 तक के मद में धनराशि रु० 15,85,069.00 है। इसके अतिरिक्त पुनर्जीवीकरण शुल्क रु० 4,72,500.00 देय होगा।
अतः आपसे अनुरोध है कि कृपया उपरोक्त लम्बित देय धनराशि जमा करने एवं पुनर्जीवीकरण शुल्क के सम्बन्ध में अपनी सहमति देते हुये इस कार्यालय को अवगत कराने का कष्ट करें।
भवदीय, क्षेत्रीय प्रबन्धक
The petitioner, it appears, did not take any action with regard to the letter dated 17.01.2019 and thereafter filed a writ petition being Writ-C No. 12277 of 2024 (Madan Chand Kapoor versus State of U.P. And 2 Others) and the Court on 01.05.2024 passed an order to the effect that if the petitioner is still willing to clear the outstanding amounts for the revival of the plot in question and if a representation is moved within ten days then the same shall be considered in accordance with law. The paragraph no. 6 of the order dated 01.05.2024 is being reproduced hereas under:
“6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as the petitioner is willing to clear the outstanding/ required amount qua revival of the the plot in question, in case he moves detailed representation to the authority concerned within ten days with assurance that entire outstanding/ required amount shall be deposited within stipulated time, the authority would provide the statement of demand within next one week and, thereafter, we hope and trust that the authority concerned would consider and decide the claim of the petitioner as per law in three weeks, thereafter. ”
Pursuant to the order passed on 01.05.2024, the petitioner moved a representation on 13.05.2024, 11.06.2024, 07.08.2024 and thereafter on 17.03.2025. Ultimately on 04.07.2025, a demand of Rs. 1,10,23,539/-was raised by the UPSIDC. Aggrieved thereof the instant writ petition has been filed.
Ms. Vatsala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made the following submissions:
Ms. Vatsala, learned counsel for the petitioner states that with the affidavit filed on 11.12.2025, a document had been annexed which was the related to the Board Meeting of the Directors. In a particular paragraph it was stated that even though the allotment was made of the plot in question in 2009 in Chakeri Area, Kanpur Nagar, the electricity supply had begun only in the month of July, 2015.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the Operating Manual for Industrial Area, 2023, and has relied upon Chapter 8, more specifically Clause 8.01 wherein the extension of time was provided. The relevant portion of the Clause 8.01 of the Operating Manual for Industrial Area, 2023, with regard to the time extension which would have applied to the petitioner’s case as per the petition, is being reproduced hereas under:
“8.01 TIME EXTENSION
The Authority has a policy of allowing a certain pre-decided time as per proposed investment from the date of allotment to allottees/ transferees for setting up unit on the plot and covering minimum area as stipulated in the prevailing policy. Beyond such period, further extension is permitted/ Time Extension Fee (TEF) is charged on the basis of various Board decisions taken from time to time and based on the resultant insertions of conditions in the allotment/transfer letter issued to the allottee / transferee: -
a)Any additional time beyond the stipulated period for commencement of production Time Extension Fee shall be charged as per allotment letter/transfer letter/lease deed.
b)For other cases Time Extension till 31.12.2017 shall be charged at following rates.
Sl. No. Stipulated period for establishment of unit Without any fee 1. Additional 1 year 5% of original premium as TEF 2. Additional 1 year beyond above 10% of original premium as TEF 3. For further one year and so on per annum 15% of original premium as TEF c)Time Extension from 01.01.2018 shall be charged as per following table
Sl. No. Stipulated period for establishment of unit Without any fee 1. Additional 1 year 10% of current premium as TEF 2. Additional 1 year beyond above 15% of original premium as TEF 3. For further one year and so on per annum 15% of original premium as TEF d)In the case of Restoration Time Extension Fee shall be charged @ 15% of current premium for 01 year.
NOTE:
•As per the provisions of the UP Industrial Area Development Act 1976 as amendment from time to time, time for setting up of unit on plots shall be allowed and necessary action as per provisions of Act shall be taken.
•Covid relief shall be given wherever applicable as per office order dated 07/08/2020 & 19/10/2022
No Time Extension Fee (TEF) for Government Allottees
Time extension in the case of allotments where allottees are fully owned by Central and/or State Government Organization shall be provided without any Extension Fee. Decisions in individual cases shall be taken by the CEO of UPSIDA
TEF where Possession was delayed.
For cases where Authority was not able to transfer the possession of plot due to encroachment/court cases/judicial order or reasons beyond its control and where allottee/transferee chooses the option to either retain/change the allotted plot, Authority shall provide free time for establishment and production of unit as mentioned in allotment/transfer letter from the date of offer of possession letter.
TEF waiver in case of lack of infrastructure/ other reasons
For cases where the utilization of plot was not possible due to lack of infrastructural facilities such as approach road, power supply or such other reasons, a waiver of the TEF and interest thereon may be granted if the same is recommended by a Committee constituted under the chairmanship of regional managers and deputy commissioner industries, senior manager civil, accounts officer, representative from ATP section, representative of District Magistrate being its members. The final approval in such cases shall be accorded by Chief Executive officer.
Other Conditions of Time Extension Policy in Industrial Areas are as under: -
a)It shall be applicable in all cases of new allotment/ transfer.
b)TEF shall be charged only in case of vacant plots as per definition provided in the Operating Manual
c)It shall be the responsibility of Regional Offices to identify all such cases which remain vacant after the stipulated period as mentioned in allotment/transfer letter and shall serve appropriate notice to the defaulters.
d)Request for time extension will have to be made by the defaulting allottees before the expiry of original/extended period and in case no such request is pending, and plot is still vacant, the Regional Manager shall ensure cancellation of such cases as per rules.
e)In cases where the request of time extension is made after the expiry of original extended period and the plot was not cancelled; the TEF would be payable for the entire period elapsed since expiry of original/extended time limit. Interest on the TEF shall be payable from the start of this time period.
f)A proposal for a time extension shall be granted only after assessing the genuineness of the request.
g)In cases where the unit commences production, after the stipulated period or any extended period, then TEF shall be charged for a minimum period of one month at the rate of 1/12th of TEF of corresponding year. In case, the TEF is not paid by the allottee, allotment shall be liable for cancellation on ground of non-payment of TEF. Also, in such cases the TEF shall be amenable for recovery as per the provisions of recovery of land revenue arrears.
h)The burden of submitting proof for utilization such as Udyog Aadhaar registration (proof of investment corresponding to plant and machinery shall be obtained), GST order, Sales purchase bills, bills for purchase of machinery, electric meter sealing certificate, electricity bill along with completion certificate shall rest with the allottee.
i)Time extension shall not be granted if the allottee has violated any terms &conditions of allotment letter/transfer letter/license agreement/lease deed other than the condition regarding utilization of the plot.
j)During duly allowed/extended period, a plot would remain liable for cancellation on grounds of violation of allotment/transfer letter/lease deed other than non-utilization.
k)Interest in unpaid TEF would be chargeable as per usual practice and demand shall be raised in demand notices.
l)TEF will not be a part of premium and will not therefore be refunded/adjusted in any case whatsoever.
m)Regional Manager will ensure incorporation of clause pertaining to pay ability of TEF with complete schedule in allotment letter/transfer letter/lease deed.
n)Application of time extension shall be made online through the Nivesh Mitra Portal
o)It is further clarified that considering the practical aspects of time extension, the cases should be referred to HO after receipt of time extension fee. While forwarding such cases to head office following should be specifically mentioned by the Regional Manager
i.Allottee has deposited total outstanding demand and has applied with time extension fee.
ii.TEF applicable in such cases for past required period has also been deposited.
Iii. There is no change in the constitution of partnership/ shareholding in companies.
iv.Signature of the allottee conforms with signature available in record and for confirmation of identification signature has been certified by the bank or copy of PAN card has been obtained.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the guidelines for restoration of allotment of the cancellation of the plot in the industrial area which were given out in Operating Manual for Industrial Area, 2023, in Chapter-V. Clause 6B of it is being reproduced hereas under:
“B. The amount calculated as per the following table, will be payable in the restoration fee
| S.N. | Time elapsed from the date of allotment/transfer to the date of Restoration | Restoration Fee Payable (Per Sq. Meter) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Up to 5 years | 30% of the premium rate effective on the date of restoration |
| 2 | Above 5 years and less than 10 years | 50% of the premium rate effective on the date of restoration |
| 3 | Above 10 years | 75% of the premium rate effective on the date of restoration |
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that when the notarized affidavit was filed on 29.08.2017, then no reply was sent and outright a demand was made on 16.10.2017 and thereafter the cancellation order was passed on 13.04.2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that after the order dated 13.04.2018 was challenged by means of the writ petition being Writ-C No. 12277 of 2024 (Madan Chand Kapoor versus State of U.P. And 2 Others) in the year 2024 then the order impugned was passed in pursuance of the order dated 01.05.2024 on 04.07.2025.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that there was no provision for the imposition of interest on restoration charges.
Sri Sunil Kumar Misra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 2 and 3, however, has submitted that the petitioner was given the chance to get the allotment revived on many occasions. On 22.06.2013, a demand was raised of Rs. 25,85,139/-, on 21.12.2013 a demand was raised for the deposit of Rs. 27,25,517.24/- and then by a circular/communication dated 03.08.2017 again an opportunity was given to the petitioner to get the plot revived. He states that as per the affidavit submitted on 29.05.2017, the opportunity was taken by the petitioner and a notarized affidavit was also submitted on that date, but when a demand was raised of Rs. 49,53,226/- as per the prevailing Operating Manual for Industrial Areas, the petitioner did not deposit the same and, therefore, the authority had to recalculate the entire demand and, therefore, on 17.01.2019 a demand was raised for depositing a sum of Rs. 36,57,652/- for the time extension + 15,85,069/- for the interest and Rs. 4,72,500/- for restoration charges of the allotment. The total amount, therefore, which was payable by the petitioner on 17.01.2019 was to the tune of Rs. 57,15,221/-. Learned counsel for the respondents states that when the petitioner was given an opportunity to get the cancelled allotment restored on 17.01.2019, the petitioner did not avail of that opportunity and only in the year 2024, filed a writ petition being Writ-C No. 12277 of 2024 (Madan Chand Kapoor versus State of U.P. And 2 Others) against the cancellation order dated 17.01.2019. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner slept over the matter and did not avail the opportunities which were granted to him. Learned counsel for the respondents states that after the representation as per the order dated 01.05.2024 passed in Writ-C No. 12277 of 2024 (Madan Chand Kapoor versus State of U.P. And 2 Others) filed in pursuance of the order passed in Writ-C No. 12277 of 2024 (Madan Chand Kapoor versus State of U.P. And 2 Others) was rejected on 04.07.2025 and a demand was also raised of Rs. 1,10,23,539/-, then the petitioner did not comply with that demand but filed the instant writ petition.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 2 and 3 further submitted that the petitioner was allotted a plot on 21.11.2009 and the only intention of the petitioner was to retain the plot and never start off with the production etc. for which purpose the plot was allotted. It was further submitted that even though the production of electricity had started in the year 2003, it did not specifically state that the petitioner’s plot was not being provided with the electricity. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that as per the calculation which had been filed in the counter affidavit dated 29.03.2026 and as per the committee report dated 12.09.2025 there were certain calculations which had been done by the committee before coming to the conclusion that an amount of Rs. 1,10,23,539/- had to be paid and this calculation was never challenged by means of any writ petition etc. and even in this writ petition the calculation had not been challenged.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the allotment had taken place on 21.11.2009. The petitioner even though had paid the allotment charges never entered into any lease/license agreement. The petitioner was granted opportunities on 22.06.2013 to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,85,139/-, on 21.12.2013 to deposit a sum of Rs. 27,25,517/- and thereafter again on 16.10.2017 to deposit a sum of Rs. 49,53,226/-. Thereafter, on 17.01.2019, it was again granted an opportunity to deposit a sum of Rs. 57,15,221/- but this sum was never deposited. Now, the petitioner when was being asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,10,23,539/- instead of challenging the actual calculation, has filed the writ petition on the ground that the amenities were not being provided and also the calculations which were being done were not being done as per the Operating Manual for Industrial Area, 2023. We are of the view that the calculations had never been challenged and they were never challenged as per Operating Manual for Industrial Area of the concerned year.
Under such circumstances, we are of the view that no interference is warranted.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
If the petitioner applies for the refund of the amount which had already been paid then the same be returned to him in accordance with law.