M/S Beckon Square Hotels And Properties (P) LTD Thru Director Ashish Agarwal vs. State Of U.P. Thru Addl Chief Secy/ Chairman Upsidc Lko And Another

Held

The Court noted that the extension order dated 11.12.2009 did not mention any extension fee, which appeared consistent with Clause 25 of the allotment letter, allowing extension up to two years without a fee. The Court observed that the petitioner had not raised a grievance against the demand for extension fee itself, but only against the interest demanded on it. The petitioner's counsel stated that the Chairman of UPSIDA had the power to waive interest but could not show any provision supporting this. The Court expressed serious doubts about the maintainability of the writ petition before the Lucknow Bench if the Chairman lacked such power. Consequently, the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach another forum. The Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioner liberty to approach any other forum, including the Allahabad High Court, for redressal of grievances.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Beckon Square Hotels And Properties (P) Ltd, was allotted an industrial plot in 2005, with the lease executed in 2006 and possession handed over in March 2007. The allotment letter stipulated that production should commence within two years, with extensions permissible. An extension order dated December 11, 2009, granted one year's further time to set up the industry, expiring on December 10, 2010, without any extension fee. A letter in July 2013 indicated the petitioner had previously run the industry, which was then closed. A demand notice dated November 17, 2021, from the Regional Manager of UPSIDA, included demands for lease rent, maintenance charges, interest, GST, time extension fee of Rs. 14,65,078/-, and interest on delayed payment of extension fee amounting to Rs. 23,20,727/-. The petitioner's grievance was primarily against the demand for interest on the delayed payment of time extension fee.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand for interest on the delayed payment of time extension fee is legally sustainable, considering Clause 25 of the allotment letter and the extension order dated 11.12.2009? (Question of law). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the initial extension order dated 11.12.2009 did not impose any extension fee, and Clause 25 of the allotment letter permits extension up to two years from the date of allotment/transfer without any fee. The petitioner also argued that the Chairman of UPSIDA has the power to waive off any amount of interest. Respondent's arguments: The respondent (State of U.P. and UPSIDA) argued for the maintainability of the demand. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the respondent regarding the waiver of interest or the interpretation of Clause 25, beyond impliedly supporting the demand raised.