- (1.) Reply by way of rejoinder filed in court on behalf of the respondent-State is taken on record. The writ petition is a challenge to an order of the cancellation of permission granted to the petitioner to construct a Shopping Mall. The respondents dictated a particular procedure, namely, of securing permission and entering into an agreement for complying with certain conditions that included submission of building plan, payment of conversion fee and other types of fees and complete the construction after securing the necessary approval for the plans submitted. The petitioner was granted permission on 30.08.2006 and there was a specific condition requiring the completion of construction within a period of 3 years. The agreement was to be written on non-judicial stamp papers and it was admittedly executed pursuant to the permission. The petitioner had deposited Rs. 6,70,250/- on account of conversion charges and he was required to pay external development charges (EDC) calculated @ Rs. 348/- per square meter. The total amount determined at over Rs. 38 lakhs required to be paid, the first installment of which being 25% had been paid within 30 days. The balance of amount had not been paid, but the petitioner had submitted the building plan on 25.03.2008 and the licence fee was also paid by the petitioner.
(2.) The petitioner's grievance is that the building plan not being sanctioned at all and, therefore, it was not possible to put up construction and the State authorities have allowed for their own laches to be the cause for non-completion but has penalized the petitioner by withdrawing the permission. Although there is a prayer for quashing the order of withdrawal of permission, the petitioner's plea now would be only to secure the refund of the amounts which had been paid since the petitioner was not interested in putting up construction on the basis of permission already obtained. The petitioner would contend that since the project has become unviable and the licence fee has gone several times fold, it may not be possible to put up construction with the charges which are now sought to be levied.
(3.) The answer in reply is that the petitioner had been guilty of commission of breach of conditions, predominant among which is that he did not pay the installments of development charges as assessed at Rs. 38,87,442/-, except the first installment. The building plans submitted were incomplete and sketchy and they were not fit for approval. Even the requisite fees had not been deposited.;