Separate approval routes under the industrial park scheme prevent importing the 50% allotment cap into non-automatic approvals.

The Scheme treated the Automatic Approval Route and the Non-Automatic Route as separate regimes. The 50% occupiable area restriction applied only under paragraph 6(f) governing automatic approval, while paragraph 7(3) for non-automatic approval required case-by-case consideration subject to statutory requirements and any conditions imposed by the Empowered Committee. Because the approval for the industrial park did not itself impose a 50% cap on allotment to a single unit, that automatic-route restriction could not be imported into the non-automatic route. The withdrawal of approval on that footing was therefore unsustainable, and the cancellation was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the approval granted to the industrial park could be withdrawn on the footing that more than 50% of the allocable area had been allotted to a single entity, and whether the restriction contained in the Automatic Approval Route could be applied to a proposal approved under the Non-Automatic Route.

Analysis: The Scheme treated the Automatic Approval Route and the Non-Automatic Route as distinct regimes. The 50% occupiable area restriction was expressly found in paragraph 6(f), which governed the Automatic Approval Route, whereas paragraph 7(3) governing the Non-Automatic Route contemplated consideration of each application on a case-to-case basis, subject to statutory requirements and such conditions as the Empowered Committee deemed fit. The approval granted to the petitioner did not impose any condition restricting allotment to a single unit to 50% of the allocable area. In that situation, a condition applicable only to the Automatic Approval Route could not be imported into the Non-Automatic Route, and the withdrawal of approval on that basis was unsupported.

Conclusion: The withdrawal of approval was unsustainable, and the challenge to the cancellation succeeded.

---