- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
(2.) THE controversy as raised in the present writ petition is narrated in brief herein as under: As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner was allotted Plot No. A -199 under R -01 Scheme in Sector -37 of Greater Noida by the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority/respondent no.2 and in pursuance thereof an allotment letter/lease deed was executed on 17.7.2000 and thereafter possession certificate was issued on 18.7.2000 and possession of the plot was taken over on the same day itself. Para 23(c) of the lease deed reads as under: "Para 23 (c) R -01 (Sector -37) - That the Lessee shall have to erect and complete building on the leased land within seven years from the date of allotment or upto April 2003 whichever is earlier, unless extension is allowed by the lessor in exceptional circumstances and on such conditions as it may impose. (Extension of one year, two year and three year may be granted by the lessor on payment of 4% for 1st year, 6% for 2nd year and 8% for 3rd year, of the total premium of the plot, as an extension charges by the lessee). (c) Cover page of the Possession Certificate dated 18.7.2000 to show that possession of the Plot was handed over on 18.7.2000."
(3.) IT has further been contended that when neither completion/occupancy certificate was issued nor there was any responsibility on the respondents, the petitioner has submitted a RTI application dated 22.6.2011. In response to which the authority in their reply dated 8.7.2011 has informed that the delay penalty is to the tune of Rs.6,66,600/ -. Copy of the said application has been brought on record as annexure 6 to the writ petition. In response to the aforesaid, certain more informations were sought, however, the authority vide letter dated 20.7.2011 has intimated that "the Chief Executive Officer has approved the exemption on delay charges from 1.1.2005 to 31.12.2008. Thereafter, ensure to deposit Rs.4,78,800/ - as delay penalty upto 30.6.2011. Thereafter, 1% of prevalent rate will be payable as Delay Penalty per month." However, being aggrieved against the aforesaid calculation, petitioner has submitted a representation pointing out the errors of calculation and also raised points which were not considered while arriving at Rs.4,78,800/ - made payable as Delay Penalty as upto 30.6.2011. However, thereafter a number of correspondence was entered into between the petitioner and respondent authorities, which ultimately culminated in the petitioner's filing a writ petition before this Court being writ petition no. 194 of 2012 seeking a number of reliefs. However, the said writ petition was disposed of finally by a Division Bench of this Court on 25.9.2012 by an order which reads as follows: - "1. This writ petition is against the order passed by Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Greater Noida, district Gautam Budh Nagar (the Authority) imposing penalty on the ground that the construction has been delayed by the petitioner. 2. We have heard counsel for the petitioner. He is permitted to correct the description of respondent -1. 3. In the circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate that the petitioner may file a representation before the Secretary, Industrial Development, UP, Lucknow (Respondent -1) under section 12 of UP Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 read with section 41 of UP Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. In case any representation is filed, it may be decided by respondent -1 by a speaking order, if possible, within three -months from the date of receipt of the representation. The petitioner will file certified copy of this order; other necessary documents and a duly stamped self -addressed envelope along with the representation. Respondent -1 after taking decision will communicate the same to the petitioner. 4. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. " In pursuance thereof petitioner has submitted a representation to the Secretary, Industrial Development on 29.09.2012, however, the same was not decided. The petitioner was forced to file a contempt application no. 975 of 2013 before this Court which was disposed of by this Court on 04.03.2013 and it was only thereafter representation of the petitioner has been decided vide order dated 04.04.2013, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure no. 11 to the writ petition, which is a detail and elaborate order giving all the details regarding the fixation of penalty. It has been mentioned in the said order that the calculation done is correct and as per the provisions of prevailing policy. It was also mentioned in the order itself that waiver of the extension charges for four years after the laid down date of completion of house construction amounting to Rs.1,76,280/ - has been done. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 4.4.2013, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.;