CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. - (1.) ALLEGING cancellation of the allotment and termination of the lease deed dated 02.06.2008 by the Managing Director, Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority vide order dated 15.01.2014 as arbitrary, illegal, unjustified, premeditated and suffering from nonapplication of mind, this writ petition has been filed. In the writ petition, the petitionerForum Infrastructure (P) Ltd. has stated thus: The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. It is renowned for executing landmark projects and it is popularly known as "Forum". On 04.09.2006, the respondent no. 1Authority invited a tender bid for construction and development of a "City Centre" through a "Request For Proposal (RFP)". The City Centre in the Adityapur industrial Area is to comprise of a star hotel, club, medical centre/hospital, multiplex, retail/shopping mall etc. A consortium comprising of M/s Forum Project (P) Ltd., M/s Forum Shopping Mall (P) Ltd. and M/s Genesis Advertising (P) Ltd. (the preferred bidders) submitted its bid on 14.10.2006 and on 14.12.2006 the bid was accepted. The respondent no. 1 directed the consortium to incorporate "Special Purpose Company" with which the lease deed was to be executed. Accordingly, the petitionerCompany was incorporated as the "Special Purpose Company" on 24.01.2007 and the allotment letter was issued in favour of the petitioner on 26.03.2007. The allotment was for a period of 90 years on leasehold terms from the date of execution of lease deed and subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. The physical possession of the land comprising an area of 21.698 acres was delivered to the petitioner on 14.11.2007 and a lease deed was executed between the petitioner, the preferred bidders and the respondent no. 1 on 02.06.2008 which was duly registered. Thereafter, the petitioner paid the leasepremium amount in two installments amounting to a sum of Rs. 11,12,00,000.00 and a sum of Rs. 83,40,000.00 as advance lease rental for 5 years from 02.06.2008 till 2013. For further lease rental for the period 2013 to 2018, an amount of Rs. 1,24,94,432.00 and a sum of Rs. 1,51,03,014.00 as one time project development fee to IL and FS Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (IIDC) have also been paid by the petitionerCompany. For obtaining the building plan approval, the petitioner submitted its plan and specifications on 25.04.2007 to the respondent no. 1. And, for taking NOC under Sections 25 and 26 of the Water Act and Air Act, the petitioner submitted application dated 29.02.2008 to the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board. The Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board vide letter dated 27.10.2011 informed the petitioner that its unit comes under EIA Notification and therefore, environmental clearance from the MoEF, Government of India is required. The building plan was sanctioned by the respondent no. 1 on 17.11.2011. After the building plan was approved, the petitioner sought approval for Rain Water Harvesting which was granted on 15.02.2012. The petitioner applied for environmental clearance EIA Notification on 30.03.2012 and the respondent no. 1 also sent its recommendation dated 13.06.2012 to the MoEF. The proposal for environmental clearance for the petitioner's project was considered in the 114th meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee held on 910.07.2012. N On 09.10.2012, the petitioner submitted its response to the query/observation of the EAC on the proposal. In the meantime, a showcause dated 01.10.2012 was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted its response on 17.10.2012. The EAC in its 118th meeting held on 09.11.2012 recommended the proposal for environmental clearance and immediately the petitioner approached the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board on 14.12.2012 seeking consent to establish. However, the formal environmental clearance letter was not issued from the MoEF and in the meantime, the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) was constituted by the MoEF for the State of Jharkhand for grant of environmental clearances in respect of category (D) project activities. Accordingly, the petitioner approached SEIAA vide letters dated 23.07.2013 and 27.08.2013 for issuing necessary environmental clearance and NOC for consent to establish. On 07.09.2013, the SEIAA informed the petitioner that it has received proposal from MoEF, New Delhi on 22.08.2013 and asked the petitionerCompany to make a presentation on 24.09.2013. Vide letter dated 03.10.2013, the SEIAA informed the petitioner that in the joint meeting of SEIAA held on 24.09.2013, it has been decided to issue the environmental clearance to the petitioner's proposed project, subject to the conditions outlined therein. One of the conditions was to get permission for drawl of water from CGWD and approval of the scheme for rain water harvesting. The petitioner wrote letter dated 10.10.2013 to SEIAA clarifying in respect of the information/approval sought from the petitioner however, vide letter dated 19.11.2013, the petitionerCompany was directed to produce certificate from the Ground Water Directorate. The SEIAA noted that the compliance report submitted by the petitionerCompany was not satisfactory for the disaster management plan as well as for Air Exchangers/Ventilator facilities provided in the parking area. While the petitioner was struggling to respond to the unnecessary objections from SEIAA, the respondent no. 1 issued showcause notice dated 27.11.2013 for cancellation of allotment order, forfeiture of leasepremium and termination of lease deed dated 02.06.2008. The petitioner submitted its reply to the showcause notice on 24.12.2013. The petitioner approached the National Green Tribunal, Delhi by filing Application No. 357 of 2013. On 13.01.2014, the Tribunal issued notice and passed an order that "any action on behalf of the respondent no. 5AIADA (in Application No. 357 of 2013) shall be subject to the outcome of this application". However, the respondent issued the impugned order dated 15.01.2014 cancelling the allotment and terminated the lease deed dated 02.06.2008.
(2.) A counteraffidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the respondent no. 1 is a statutory authority created under the Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 2001. A piece of land measuring 21.698 acres was allotted to the petitioner and a lease deed was executed. The schedule of completion of every stage was linked with the date of taking possession of the plot by the lessee and under Clause II 4(a) of the lease deed a maximum period of 120 days from taking over the possession of demised plot has been provided for making applications for clearances and under Clause II 4(b) a period of 180 days was provided for starting the construction of the project. The AIADA is required to grant requisite clearances and permits which are necessary for implementation of the project. It is also provided that nonadherence to the schedule for implementation of the project by the lessee would be considered as default which can result in termination of the lease deed followed by taking possession from the lessee and forfeiture of the leasepremium and lease rent. Since the lessee did not commence the work as per schedule, a showcause notice dated 01.10.2012 was issued to the petitioner and sufficient time was granted to the petitioner however, even 14 months thereafter the petitioner did not make genuine efforts for commencement of the construction, completion and commission of the project and therefore, after issuing showcause notice dated 27.11.2013 in exercise of power conferred under Section 6 (2) (a) and (b) of the Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Act, 2001 read with Rule 3(1) of the rules framed thereunder, the allotment order no. 772/ADA dated 26.03.2007 was cancelled and the lease deed dated 02.06.2008 was terminated, forfeiting the amount deposited by the petitioner.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this is not a case in which the petitioner has not taken serious steps for obtaining necessary sanctions/clearances from GovernmentAuthority. For delay on the part of the GovernmentAuthority and the AIADA the respondents cannot insist upon adherence to the time schedule prescribed in the lease deed. The petitioner could not have started the construction work in absence of necessary permission as, it would have incurred penal consequences. In any event, the MoEF had granted environmental clearance to the project and the Minutes of Meeting dated 09.12.2012 was duly displayed on the website however, in the meantime, SEIAA was constituted in the State of Jharkhand and therefore, the petitioner had to pursue the matter with SEIAA once again. Though, the ground water clearance was given vide letter dated 20.10.2012 itself, permission for extraction of ground water was delayed. The delay in granting permission was not for the reasons attributable to the petitioner and the petitioner had to approach the National Green Tribunal, Delhi for a direction upon SEIAA for grant of necessary environmental clearances. It is further submitted that now the petitioner has obtained all necessary sanctions/permissions and the project can be started once the environmental clearance is granted to the petitioner. The petitioner has completed all formalities and rectified all deficiencies and the environmental clearance would be granted once the respondent no. 1 gives NOC. ;