SEZ exit applications under Rule 74 do not require a co-developer hearing, and compliant exit orders stand.

Rule 74 of the Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006 allows a unit to opt out of the SEZ scheme with Development Commissioner approval and compliance with prescribed conditions, including duties, penalties and formalities. A co-developer has no statutory right to be heard when such an exit application is considered, and the absence of a no due certificate was not shown to invalidate the request where the materials did not establish a mere transfer or relocation. The challenge to the exit orders therefore failed, the orders were upheld as consistent with the statutory framework, and the petitioner's separate remedy regarding rent arrears was left open.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application by a Special Economic Zone unit for exit under Rule 74 of the Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006 could be rejected on the ground that the co-developer had no opportunity of hearing or that a no due certificate was necessary because the unit was allegedly shifting to another zone.

Analysis: Rule 74 permits a unit to opt out of the Special Economic Zone scheme with the approval of the Development Commissioner, subject to the prescribed conditions relating to duties, penalties, and completion of formalities. The provision does not confer any right of hearing on a co-developer when an exit application is considered. On the facts, the materials relied on to suggest a mere transfer or relocation did not establish that the application was anything other than a request for exit from the scheme in respect of the unit concerned. The communication regarding shifting or relocation of units was held inapplicable, as the unit already had a separate unit elsewhere and sought exit from the existing unit. The impugned orders were found to be passed in accordance with the statutory framework and did not warrant interference under Article 226.

Conclusion: The challenge to the exit orders failed. The co-developer had no legal role in the exit decision under Rule 74, and the orders allowing exit were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, leaving the exit orders undisturbed and reserving the petitioner's remedy, if any, in relation to rent arrears before the appropriate forum.

Ratio Decidendi: A co-developer has no statutory right to be heard in a unit's exit application under Rule 74 of the Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006, and an exit order passed by the Development Commissioner in accordance with that rule is not liable to interference merely because the co-developer disputes the character of the request.

---