Forfeiture of development charges valid per explicit allotment and lease terms on voluntary plot surrender; writ jurisdiction under Article 226 excludes adjudication of contractual disputes or factual infrastructure delay issues.

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

Under assail is the writ order dated 24.02.2023 in W.P.No.1745/2015.

2. The appellant, State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd., instituted the present intra Court Appeal under Section 15 of Letters Patent Act, mainly on the ground that the writ order impugned is running counter to the terms and conditions of the allotment order issued in favour of the 1^st respondent as well as the lease deed executed between the appellant and the respondent.

3. The facts in brief, not controverted between the parties would show that an order of allotment was issued by the appellant in favour of the respondent Company for allotting Plot No.1/40 measuring 24 acres on 07.07.2011. A registered lease deed was executed on 01.12.2011 between the parties. Possession of plot in the Special Economic Zone, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District, was handed over to the respondent Company on 26.12.2007. The Government issued G.O.Ms.23, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 24.01.2012, relating to handing over of Open Space Reservation (OSR) and Roads by Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Developers. The respondent Company addressed a letter to the appellant seeking necessary clearances for development of the Unit dated 11.06.2012. They have requested to provide for DTCP and TNPCB approval for SEZ and HT power connection point for execution of the project. The appellant informed the respondent Company on 10.01.2013 that as per G.O.(Ms).No.169, Industrial (MIE2) Department dated 21.09.1996, the allottee could commence the construction after submitting the application for building plan approval to the competent authority. However, the respondent company cited reasons for delay in project execution and sought for clarification from SIPCOT regarding tentative timelines for provision of power, DTCP approval and other infrastructure facilities. When the processes are on, the respondent company surrendered the plot on 12.08.2013 with a request to refund the amount deposited by the respondent Company. The reasons cited by the respondent Company is that the infrastructure development was delayed due to Government procedures and therefore, they have decided to surrender the plot. The surrender letter submitted by the respondent Company was considered and the appellant issued a cancellation order, cancelling the allotment on 24.06.2014, refunding the amount eligible to the tune of Rs.6,01,60,250/-. The development charges paid by the respondent to the tune of Rs. 1,07,03,840/- was forfeited as per the conditions stipulated in the allotment order and lease deed. Thus, the dispute pertains to refund of development charges alone.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the terms and conditions of allotment order as well as the lease deed are crystal clear. Having agreed, the respondent cannot seek refund of the development charges which was forfeited in accordance with the agreement entered between the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent would oppose by stating that the appellant has failed to develop the Special Economic Zone and there was a delay in providing basic amenities including water and electricity service connection. Therefore, the respondent Company has decided to surrender the plot and thus, they are entitled for refund of the entire deposited amount, including the development charges. He would draw the attention of this Court with reference to the letter addressed by the re