Completion and occupation certificates under an industrial park scheme cannot be reappraised by the approval authority.

Under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2008, rejection of an application for notification was held unsustainable where the competent municipal authority had issued phased part-occupation certificates and later confirmed completion and occupation of the building. The High Court ruled that the approval authority could not disregard those certificates or reappraise municipal permissions, absent fraud or suspect circumstances. It further held that alleged defects concerning allocable area, common facility area, infrastructure facility area, and scheme compliance were assessed on an unduly rigid reading of the scheme, which distinguishes those areas and requires examination of the project actually developed. The rejection was quashed and reconsideration directed, while direct issuance of the notification was refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether rejection of the application for notification under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2008 was justified on the ground that the petitioners had not produced the required completion or occupation certificate for the industrial park; (ii) Whether the authority was justified in treating the treatment of allocable area, common facility area, infrastructure facility area, and the alleged breach of the scheme conditions as reasons to reject the application.

Issue (i): Whether rejection of the application for notification under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2008 was justified on the ground that the petitioners had not produced the required completion or occupation certificate for the industrial park.

Analysis: The scheme required the date of commencement to be evidenced by a completion or occupation certificate from the local authority. The material showed that the Municipal Corporation had granted part occupation certificates in stages and later confirmed that the entire building had been granted occupation permission upon completion. The Board was not entitled to disregard that confirmation or to sit in appeal over the municipal authority's grant of part occupation and completion-related permissions. Once a competent local authority had certified completion and occupation in the manner permitted by municipal law, the Board could not reject the application merely because the certificates were phased or part-wise.

Conclusion: The rejection on this ground was unsustainable and is set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the authority was justified in treating the treatment of allocable area, common facility area, infrastructure facility area, and the alleged breach of the scheme conditions as reasons to reject the application.

Analysis: The scheme itself distinguishes allocable area from common facility and infrastructure facility areas, and the record showed that the petitioners had furnished revised particulars and explanations regarding the areas and the units housed in the project. The authority's approach proceeded on an overly rigid and legally incorrect understanding of the scheme, especially the concepts of industrial park, allocable area, and commercial area limits. The impugned order failed to appreciate that the relevant inquiry was compliance with the scheme as applied to the project actually developed, not a speculative insistence on a different conception of the entire complex. The decision also overlooked the legal position that municipal certificates, unless shown to be fraudulent or otherwise suspect, are not open to collateral reappraisal by the tax authority.

Conclusion: The rejection on the basis of alleged non-compliance with the allocable area and related conditions cannot stand.

Final Conclusion: The impugned rejection was quashed and the application was directed to be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law, while the prayer for direct issuance of the notification was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory authority administering a tax-linked approval scheme cannot disregard a competent local authority's completion or occupation certificate, nor can it reject the application by reappreciating municipal permissions or applying an unduly literal view of scheme conditions that distinguish allocable area from common and infrastructure facilities.

---