M/S GAURSONS MEGA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2024-01-16

O R D E R

1 Leave granted.

2 A writ petition1 under Article 226 of the Constitution was instituted by the appellant to assail the legality of an office memorandum dated 20 November 2017 and a consequential order of demand dated 18 October 2023 issued by the second respondent (Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority) seeking to levy transfer charges of Rs 1,13,88,69,300 upon the appellant. The appellant also sought a direction to the second respondent to issue a final NOC for approval of maps from NOIDA.

3 The facts which are not in dispute are that the original lease was executed in favour of Jaypee Infratech Limited (JIL). JIL in turn executed a sub-lease in favour of Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL). The appellant claims to be a sub-lessee of JAL. The appellant has sought to contest the demand for transfer charges levied by the second respondent.

4 In support of its submissions, the appellant sought to rely on the provisions of clause 4.3(e) of the Concession Agreement which was entered into between Taj Expressway Industrial Development Authority with JIL.

1 Writ-C 39286 of 2023 5 The High Court has dismissed the petition by its impugned order dated 16 November 2023.

6 We have heard Mr Parag P Tripathi, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, and Mr Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, with Mr Maninder Singh, senior counsel, for the second respondent.

7 During the course of the hearing before the High Court, the second respondent had relied upon a policy dated 29 December 2007 called “Policy for Planned Development Along Taj Expressway”. The Solicitor General submits that the policy was tendered to the High Court, but, it has not been specifically considered in the impugned order. Moreover, it has been submitted that any view which would be taken one way or the other would have a bearing on other similar cases.

8 Mr Parag P Tripathi, on the other hand, submits that the claim of the appellant was squarely based on the provisions of clause 4.3(e) of the original Concession Agreement with JIL and it is the case of the appellant that any subsequent policy will have no application. Mr Tripathi has also submitted that the substantial question which was referred to in the second paragraph of the impugned order also remains to be answered.

9 At this stage, it appears from the rival submissions that no counter was available on the file of the High Court. Though the second respondent had entered a caveat before the High Court, it appears that the proceedings were disposed of at the initial hearing without a counter. As a consequence, the High Court did not have the benefit of a reply by the second respondent.

10 In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the appropriate course of action would be to set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 16 November 2023 and to restore the writ proceedings back to the file of the High Court for disposal afresh. Ordered accordingly.

11 We permit the second respondent to file its counter affidavit before the High Court on or before 20 February 2024. The appellant shall be at liberty to file its rejoinder, if any, within a period of one week thereafter.

12 Liberty to the appellant to mention the proceedings before the High Court for being taken up in the list of fresh cases.

13 Mr Parag P Tripathi states that the appellant will move an application for interim relief before the High Court. We have not expressed any opinion thereon and it would be appropriate for the High Court to take its view in the matter.

14 The appeal is disposed of.

15 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

..…..…....…........……………….…........CJI.

[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

…..…..…....…........……………….…........J.

[J B Pardiwala]

…..…..…....…........……………….…........J.

[Manoj Misra]

New Delhi;

January 16, 2024

-S- ITEM NO.19 COURT NO.1 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).600/2024

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-11-2023 in WRITC No. 39286/2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad)

M/S GAURSONS MEGA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.3577/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 16-01-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Parag P Tripathi, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Kamaldeep Dayal, Adv.

Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, AOR Ms. Vasundhara Bakhru, Adv.

Mr. Sachin Mintri, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Amar Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Divyam Agarwal, AOR Mr. Parth Dua, Adv.

Mr. Abhay Pratap Singh, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1 Leave granted.

2 The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.

3 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed order is placed on the file)