Contractual infrastructure liability prevails despite statutory exemption; estoppel and expectation cannot override express payment terms.

A development project exemption from the statutory regime did not extinguish a separate contractual obligation to bear proportionate infrastructure development cost, because the agreement treated "infrastructure development" as broad enough to include external development works. The State could not deny all concessions merely because the original time schedule expired where it had itself extended time and considered further rescheduling. Promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation, and discrimination could not override the express contractual liability, though the agreement and policy still supported relief against change of land use charges and the social infrastructure fund demand, with licence fee to be computed only for the non-industrial component.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the contractual expression relating to proportionate infrastructure development cost covered external development works and made the petitioner liable to pay external development charges despite exemption from the statute. (ii) Whether the contractual withdrawal clause and the stipulated time schedule deprived the petitioner of the claimed concessions. (iii) Whether the petitioner could resist the demand on the grounds of promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation, and discrimination.

Issue (i): Whether the contractual expression relating to proportionate infrastructure development cost covered external development works and made the petitioner liable to pay external development charges despite exemption from the statute.

Analysis: The exemption granted under the policy and agreement was not absolute. The project was exempted from the statute, but the agreement expressly fastened liability to bear proportionate cost of infrastructure development. The expression "infrastructure development" was held to be wider in scope than "external development works" and to include the latter. Since the petitioner accepted that condition in the agreement, the liability to pay external development charges survived notwithstanding the exemption from the statutory regime.

Conclusion: The petitioner was liable to pay proportionate infrastructure development cost, and external development charges were not exempted.

Issue (ii): Whether the contractual withdrawal clause and the stipulated time schedule deprived the petitioner of the claimed concessions.

Analysis: The agreement contained a clause providing for withdrawal of concessions on failure to perform within the stipulated period, but the respondents themselves had extended the time and had adopted a later policy offering further rescheduling. In that situation, the authority could not unilaterally treat the petitioner as having lost all concessions merely on the ground of expiry of time. The issue of time schedule did not justify denial of the reliefs where the State itself had continued to extend the period and considered further extension.

Conclusion: The respondents could not deny the claimed concessions solely on the basis of expiry of the original or extended time schedule.

Issue (iii): Whether the petitioner could resist the demand on the grounds of promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation, and discrimination.

Analysis: Those doctrines could not defeat a liability that the petitioner had expressly undertaken in the agreement. The petitioner had agreed to bear the infrastructure development cost, so no representation by the State was violated in that respect. The plea of discrimination also failed because the earlier cases relied upon arose from different agreements that did not contain the same liability clause. At the same time, the petitioner was entitled to relief where the agreement and policy expressly exempted it from change of land use charges and where the social infrastructure fund demand lacked legal basis. Licence fee was held payable only for the non-industrial component, while the statutory fund under the notified exemption remained recoverable.

Conclusion: The pleas of promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation, and discrimination failed insofar as they were directed against the agreed infrastructure liability, but the petitioner succeeded on CLU charges and social infrastructure fund, with licence fee to be worked out component-wise.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were disposed of by upholding the petitioner's liability to pay proportionate infrastructure development cost and external development charges, while setting aside the demand for CLU charges and social infrastructure fund and directing reconsideration of further extension and rescheduling to keep the project viable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a development project is exempted from the statutory regime but the agreement specifically requires payment of proportionate infrastructure development cost, that contractual liability includes external development works and cannot be avoided by invoking exemption, promissory estoppel, or legitimate expectation.

---