# M/S Jupiter Information Tech. Pvt. Ltd., Delhi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 3 ILRA 1388
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-09-15
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49075 of 2014
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Vivek Kumar Birla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-jupiter-information-tech-pvt-ltd-delhi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43138
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226Restoration of allotment of plot
-on
certain
default-considering
huge
investment-as per clause 'L' of the
policies
&
Procedures for
industrial
3 All].
M/S Jupiter Information Tech. Pvt. Ltd., Delhi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1389
property
management-subject
to
fulfillment of the conditions-authority to
consider and take appropriate decisionpetition disposed of.
Held: Para-8
Having
considered
the
submissions
raised, we dispose of the writ petition
with a direction to the respondent no. 2,
to consider the aforesaid claim of the
petitioner and pass appropriate orders
within two months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this
order
provided
there
is
no
legal
impediment or any other policy of
Government Order contrary to the above.

## Text

1388
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the purpose that is involved and the public
interest that would be subserved by the
project. The prescribed limit of 12.50
acres has been introduced as a part of the
legislation which subserves the wider
social policy of the State, made in
pursuance of the Directive Principles of
State
Policy
in
the
Constitution.
Consequently, any dispensation from the
prescribed limit of 12.50 acres will have
to meet the conditions of exemption
which have been stipulated in the statute
and it is only subject to compliance with
those conditions that a dispensation can
be granted in the exercise of discretion by
the State.
11. In the present case, prima facie,
it cannot be held that the petitioners have
no specific project or purpose behind the
acquisition of the land. The petitioners
have submitted a detailed project report to
the State Government. The proposal was
recommended
both
by
the
District
Magistrate
as
well
as
by
the
Commissioner to the State Government.
Having regard to this factual background,
it was necessary for the State Government
to
take
those
recommendations
of
responsible officers of the State into
consideration. In the present case, having
considered all materials on record, we
have come to the conclusion that the
impugned order does not take into
account
relevant
and
germane
circumstances and has been passed
without a due and proper application of
mind.
12. In view of the above, the petition
deserves
to
be
allowed
and
is,
accordingly, allowed. The order dated 14
August 2014 passed by the Principal
Secretary (Revenue) is set aside. The
matter
is
remanded
to
the
State
Government for a decision afresh, which
shall be made after furnishing to the
petitioners a reasonable opportunity of
being heard.
13. We grant liberty to the
petitioners to produce any additional
material upon which they seek to place
reliance before the State Government. We
also leave it open to the State Government
to direct the petitioners to produce further
information and material, as may be
required by the State Government to
arrive at a proper conclusion for the
exercise of its discretion, in accordance
with the provisions of Section 154 (3) of
the Act.
14. The petition is accordingly
disposed of. In the circumstances of the
case, there shall be no order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.09.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49075 of 2014
M/S Jupiter Information Tech. Pvt. Ltd.,
Delhi
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.K. Jaiswal, Sri H.R. Mishra
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Shivam Yadav
Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226Restoration of allotment of plot
-on
certain
default-considering
huge
investment-as per clause 'L' of the
policies
&
Procedures for
industrial
3 All].
M/S Jupiter Information Tech. Pvt. Ltd., Delhi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1389
property
management-subject
to
fulfillment of the conditions-authority to
consider and take appropriate decisionpetition disposed of.
Held: Para-8
Having
considered
the
submissions
raised, we dispose of the writ petition
with a direction to the respondent no. 2,
to consider the aforesaid claim of the
petitioner and pass appropriate orders
within two months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this
order
provided
there
is
no
legal
impediment or any other policy of
Government Order contrary to the above.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)
1. Heard Sri H.R. Mishra, learned
senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the
respondents no. 2, 3 and 4.
2. The petitioner had been allotted a
commercial plot.
3. The contention of the respondents
appears to be that the petitioner has
defaulted and, therefore, the plot has been
cancelled as per the conditions applicable.
4. The petitioner contends that he
has made huge deposits and, therefore, the
prayer is that the plot may be allowed to
be retained by the petitioner on the terms
and conditions that may be applicable for
the said purpose.
5. This matter had been adjourned to
enable
the
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent authority to inform the Court
whether such a course is permissible or not.
6. Sri Shivam Yadav has presented
before the Court a document titled as
"The
Policies
and
Procedures
for
Industrial
Property
Management"
of
October, 2012.
7.
Sri Shivam Yadav has invited the
attention of the Court to Clause L of the said
policy, which is extracted herein under:
Restoration of Industrial Plot/Shed
The
Authority
can
exercise
cancellation of industrial plot/shed for
breach of terms and conditions of
allotment/lease
deed/Transfer
deed.
However, the Chief Executive Officer/or
any other officer authorised by him can
restore the plot. the restoration will be
subject to the following conditions:-
1. The allottee would pay restoration
charges @ 10% of the prevailing
rate/reserve price. .
2. The allottee has to produce NOC
of accounts department.
3. The allottee has to pay time
extension, charges as per terms of
allotment/lease.
4. The allottee will submit project
implementation schedule in the shape of
affidavit. The maximum time allowed is
one year for plot size upto 4000 sq. mtrs.
And two years for plot size above 4000 sq.
mtrs.
5.
The
allottee
has
to
submit
performance guarantee valid for more than
three months period of Pis given by him and
value of performance guarantee will be 10%
of the prevailing price of the plot.
6.
Transfer
and/or
Change
In
Constitution of the unit would not be
allowed outside the blood relation, till the
1390
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
unit is declared functional by the NOIDA
through a written communication.
7. If there is any court case pending
before any court, it has to be withdrawn
by the allottee. All legal expenses would
be borne by the allottee.
8. In case allotment has been
cancelled due to commercial activities the
restoration of the plot shall only be
considered on submission of affidavit for
not carrying out the commercial activities
in future and on inspection of the site
about closing the commercial activities.
9.
In
case
of
restoration
in
prepossession cases, the allottee shall be
required to get the unit functional as per
terms of the Lease Deed. In such cases
they will have to comply with the clauses
1,2,5,6 & 7, as stated above.
8. Having considered the submissions
raised, we dispose of the writ petition with a
direction to the respondent no. 2, to consider
the aforesaid claim of the petitioner and pass
appropriate orders within two months from
the date of production of a certified copy of
this order provided there is no legal
impediment
or
any
other
policy
of
Government Order contrary to the above.
9. With the above directions, the
writ petition is disposed off.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.09.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49946 of 2014
Nagar Palika Parishad, Mawana, Merrut
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nipun Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Anand Kumar
U.P. Palika (Centralized) Service Rules
1966-Rule-31-Additional or temporary
charge of executive officer-by G.O. Dated
24.01.2014-proposal for appointment be
send
to
state
government-District
Magistrate-no
authority
to
give
additional/temporary charge-quashed.
Held: Para-7
A perusal thereof leaves no room for
doubt that any ad hoc or temporary
officiating appointment is within the
jurisdiction of the State Government and
which stands fortified by the judgment in
paragraph 29 aforesaid. The Government
Order dated 24.1.2014 is also to the
same effect.
Case Law discussed:
2014 (1) A.D.J. Page 368.paragraph 29.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)
1. Heard Sri Nipun Singh learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajiv Singh
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
the
respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Anand
Kumar for the respondent no. 4.
2.
The Office of the Executive
Officer of the Nagar Palika, Mawana, was
lying vacant and one Mr. Manoj Kumar
Rastogi was transferred for taking over
charge as such by the State Government.
However, Mr. Rastogi has not taken over
charge
as
yet.