Court upholds cancellation of land allotments & withdrawal of NOCs due to project delays. Options for refunds or penalties.

The court upheld SIPCOT's cancellation of land allotments and withdrawal of NOCs due to petitioners' failure to implement projects within the stipulated time. SIPCOT's proposed scheme for revoking cancellations, involving payment of differential costs, was deemed reasonable. Petitioners were given options to surrender lands for refunds or retain them and pay penalties in installments while completing projects within 12 months. Failure to comply would lead to allotment cancellation. The writ petitions were disposed of without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Cancellation of land allotment and withdrawal of No Objection Certificate (NOC) by SIPCOT.
2. Petitioners' inability to implement projects within the stipulated time.
3. Maintainability of writ petitions.
4. SIPCOT's proposed scheme for revoking cancellations.
5. Specific contentions raised by petitioners regarding differential costs and penalties.
6. SIPCOT's response and justification for the penalties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Cancellation of Land Allotment and Withdrawal of NOC:
The petitioners, various industrial corporations, challenged the cancellation of their land allotments and the withdrawal of NOCs by SIPCOT. The allotments were initially made for a 99-year lease to promote industrial development in Tamil Nadu. The petitioners had paid the lease amounts, including plot deposits and development charges, and were required to complete their projects within 30 months. Failure to comply led to the cancellation of allotments and withdrawal of NOCs as per condition No.3(viii) of the allotment order.

2. Petitioners' Inability to Implement Projects:
The petitioners argued that they could not implement their projects within the stipulated time due to delays in obtaining clearances from various departments and financial institutions. The COVID-19 pandemic was also cited as a reason for the delay. The court noted that the petitioners had different dates of allotment and varying levels of development, with some having made minimal progress.

3. Maintainability of Writ Petitions:
The Advocate General argued that the writ petitions were not maintainable as the relationship between the petitioners and SIPCOT was governed by a legally valid contract, not constitutional provisions. Several Supreme Court decisions were cited to support this argument.

4. SIPCOT's Proposed Scheme for Revoking Cancellations:
SIPCOT proposed a scheme to revoke the cancellations and NOCs subject to the payment of differential costs, which is the difference between the current land cost and the original allotment cost, in proportion to the extent of non-implementation. SIPCOT had already received payments from some companies and had agreements with others to pay the differential cost.

5. Specific Contentions Raised by Petitioners:
- M/s. Saravana Sastha Steel Pvt. Ltd.: Incorrect calculation of differential cost; SIPCOT clarified the correct amount.
- M/s. Milano International P. Ltd.: Alleged differential treatment and unwillingness to pay the full differential cost; SIPCOT justified the penalty based on the prevailing policy.
- M/s. Quest Healthcare P. Ltd.: Delay due to pending environmental clearance; SIPCOT clarified no exemption was provided in the agreement for such delays.
- M/s. Agranee Auto Ancillaries Pvt. Ltd.: Claimed the allotment year should be 2018 due to DTCP approval delay; SIPCOT refuted this, stating the original allotment was in 2008.
- M/s. S-CCI India Pvt. Ltd.: Query about retaining part of the land; SIPCOT clarified the policy for surrendering unused land.
- M/s. Dignity Innovations P. Ltd.: Alleged lack of amenities and non-receipt of show cause notice; SIPCOT provided evidence of amenities and notice served.
- M/s. Thar Technologies Pvt. Ltd.: Willingness to surrender part of the land for reduced differential cost; SIPCOT agreed to reduce the penalty accordingly.
- M/s. Geebee Garments P. Ltd.: Claimed lack of proper opportunity before cancellation; SIPCOT provided the timeline of opportunities given.
- M/s. 6th Sense Infrastructure Ltd.: Suggested surrendering land to reduce differential cost; SIPCOT agreed to the reduction upon surrender.
- M/s. JNS Instruments Ltd.: Claimed improper assessment of development; SIPCOT justified the penalty based on the lack of development.
- M/s. JCBL Marrel Tippers Pvt. Ltd.: Claimed recent transfer/re-allotment; SIPCOT clarified the history of the allotment and justified the penalty.
- M/s. GPR Power Solutions P. Ltd.: Claimed no response from SIPCOT on change of use request; SIPCOT denied receiving such a letter.
- M/s. Sri Balaji Enterprises: Subleased part of the land without permission; SIPCOT justified the cancellation and penalty.
- M/s. Cenza Technologies Pvt. Ltd.: Claimed entitlement to waiver due to pending litigation; SIPCOT considered the case unique and under active consideration.
- M/s. Mayara Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.: Claimed full use of the land; SIPCOT determined only 25% utilization and justified the penalty.

6. SIPCOT's Response and Justification for Penalties:
SIPCOT justified the penalties based on the prevailing policy and the extent of non-implementation by the petitioners. The court found SIPCOT's scheme reasonable and acceptable, emphasizing the need for industrial development and the petitioners' responsibility to adhere to the conditions of the allotment.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioners must either surrender the lands and get a refund after deductions or retain the lands and pay the penalties in 12 equal monthly installments while implementing their projects within 12 months. Failure to comply would result in cancellation of the allotment. The writ petitions were disposed of with these observations, and no costs were imposed.

---