Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(35) The question, however, still remains as to what is the effect of Clause (vii) of the approval letter dated 05.05.2006 read with para 5(iv)(q) of the Agreement dated 11.10.2006? It may be seen that while according approval or while granting exemption from PAPRA, 1995, the State Government informed the petitioner in so many words that "proportionate cost of infrastructure development which will be carried out by the State Government in the area where the project is located, shall be borne by all the developers of Information Technology Park/Industrial Park proportionately". The petitioner not only accepted the above reproduced unilateral condition, it voluntarily entered into the Agreement dated 11.10.2006 and bound itself down under sub-clause (q) of para 5 to pay the For Subsequent orders see CWP-5620-2015 34 of 43 proportionate cost of infrastructure development to be carried out by the State Government in the area where the project is located. (36) It would be apt at this stage to again notice the definition of 'External Development Works' which "includes roads and road systems, water supply, sewerage and drainage systems, electricity supply or any other work which may have to be executed in the periphery, of or outside, a colony for its benefit". As against it, the phrase "Infrastructure Development" has been illustrated in para 5(iv)(e) of the Agreement, according to which, the 'Infrastructure Development' "would include roads (including approach roads), water supply and sewerage facilities, common effluent treatment facilities, telecom networks, generation and distribution of power, parking facilities, parks, street lights and such other facilities as are of common use for industrial activities which are identifiable and are to be commonly used".

(37) From the comparative analysis of the above reproduced two expressions, there should remain no doubt that the 'Infrastructure Development' is a very expansive phrase which includes the 'External Development Works' as well. 'Infrastructure Development Works' are of wider configuration to include certain works which do not find mention amongst the 'External Development Works'. The State Government who alone is the competent authority to grant exemption from the provisions of PAPRA, 1995, while granting special package of incentives including exemption from PAPRA, 1995, has by way of a special clause fastened the liability of paying proportionate cost of infrastructure development on the petitioner. Such a special clause obligating the petitioner to pay proportionate cost of infrastructure development has been expressly inserted For Subsequent orders see CWP-5620-2015 35 of 43 in the Agreement also. Not only this, the infrastructure development works have been illustratively defined in the Agreement itself to remove any room for doubt. Since the petitioner voluntarily agreed and accepted the terms and conditions of the Agreement, it cannot wriggle out of the consequences which are bound to fall upon it.

(38) The petitioner's contention that there is no statutory backup to levy the cost of infrastructure development, for there is no such provision in the PAPRA, 1995, is wholly misconceived. Once the petitioner's project is exempted from PAPRA, 1995, the affairs of the parties shall be governed by the terms and conditions of the Agreement dated 11.10.2006. Further, since the External Development Works stand included in the infrastructure development works, there can be no escape but to hold that the petitioner is liable to pay such charges as per the binding contract read with Section 5 of the PAPRA, 1995. It is clarified that since the exemption from PAPRA, 1995 granted to the petitioner was subject to its liability to pay proportionate cost towards infrastructure development works, hence, there was no exemption to it in legal parlance from the levy of 'external development charges' as defined in Section 2(p) read with Section 5 of PAPRA, 1995. Point Nos.(iii) & (iv) (39) It is undeniable that as per para (6) of the Agreement dated 11.10.2006 if the petitioner-company was unable to comply with provisions of para 5(i), 5(ii) and 5(iii) within the stipulated period of three years commencing from 29.03.2006 (which was later on extended upto 28.03.2012, with a further renewal offer under the new policy decision dated 06.02.2015), the concessions enumerated in para 5(iv) were liable to be automatically withdrawn. Since we have viewed that the petitioner is liable For Subsequent orders see CWP-5620-2015 36 of 43 to pay the proportionate costs towards infrastructure development works which include the 'External Development Works' within the meaning of Section 5 of PAPRA, 1995, it is not necessary to dwell upon the implications of petitioner's failure to make an investment of `952 crore within the initially agreed and/or subsequently extended period. (40) We, however, hasten to add that the respondent-GMADA's plea that the time is the essence of the contract and the petitioner having failed to honour the prescribed time schedule is not entitled to any concessions/incentives, merits rejection. The time limit was prescribed by the State Government while it entered into agreement with the petitioner on 11.10.2006. The State Government thereafter at its own has extended the time limit repeatedly and its latest policy dated 06.02.2015 (R3) conclusively establishes its inclination towards the completion of projects by granting concession/relief in the agreed time schedules, for which an offer has been made even to the petitioner also. Since the respondents themselves are not keen to adhere to the time schedule, we hold that GMADA has no authority to assume the role of State Government or to invoke Para 6 of the Agreement to say that the petitioner has lost its right to claim concessions due to the 'expiry' of time period, within which the project was required to be completed.

Point No.(v) (41) The petitioner's claim that the respondents are estopped by their act and conduct from levying EDC or that after exemption from PAPRA, 1995, it legitimately expected not to be burdened with EDC has to be held to be misconceived and misdirected in view of the findings returned on point Nos.(i) & (ii) above. The State Government while granting special package For Subsequent orders see CWP-5620-2015 37 of 43 of incentives on 05.05.2006, expressly informed the petitioner of its liability towards proportionate cost of infrastructure development and it was thereafter that both the parties knowing fully well the implications of such clause, entered into the Agreement dated 11.10.2006. The petitioner having agreed with open eyes to pay the proportionate cost of infrastructure development cannot turn around and invoke the principle of 'promissory estoppel' against the respondents as what the petitioner has been asked to pay is necessarily a component of the cost towards infrastructure development works only. So long as the respondents have not withdrawn the exemption from PAPRA, 1995 which might result into levy of other statutory charges on the petitioner, it cannot be said that the respondents have acted contrary to their promise. Similarly, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that it 'legitimately expected' not to pay the proportionate cost of infrastructure development works even after it agreed to share such liability while entering into agreement. We thus do not find any merit in this contention as well.