Aditya Nath Mittal, J. 1. We have heard Shri Ravi Kant, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Nisheeth Yadav appears for the respondent authorities. Learned Standing Counsel represents the respondents. 2. The petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the business of real estate development, with its registered office at Parsvnath Metro Tower near Shahdara Metro Station, Shahdara, Delhi. 3. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 16.2.2012 passed by the Secretary, Urban and Town Planning Development, Government of U.P., Lucknow, and the orders dated 15.9.2011 and 17.3.2011 passed by the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority ( GNIDA) through its Chief Executive Officer. The petitioner has also prayed for directing the Chief Executive Officer, ( GNIDA) to register the lease deed of plot No.SLC-8/G in Sector Delta-II, Greater Noida. 4. The petitioner had earlier filed the Writ Petition No.69184 of 2010, M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd. v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Anr. challenging the order/letter dated 15.9.2010 issued by the GNIDA imposing penalty upon the petitioner to the tune of Rs.8,40,25,980/- for failing to get the lease deed executed by 22nd October, 2008, and also 2% additional late fees in case of further delay after 21st October, 2010, as well as the cancellation notice dated 17th March, 2011 issued by GNIDA. The petitioner had also sought a direction for registration of the lease deed in favour of the petitioner. 5. Brief facts giving rise to the earlier writ petition as detailed in the judgment of this Court dated 6.9.2011 by which the petitioner was directed to make an appropriate application to the State Government under Section 41 ( 3) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 ( the Act), within 15 days from the date of obtaining certified copy of the order, and if that was done the State Government was directed to give fullest opportunity of hearing and to pass appropriate orders within three months, thereafter. The Court passed an order that till the date of communication of the decision to be taken by the State Government, no effect or further effect in respect of imposition of penaltydministrative charge/late fees will be given are quoted as below:- "Briefly stated facts giving rise to the present writ petition, according to the petitioner, are that the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority constituted under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 ( hereinafter in short called as the ''Act') comes within the definition of the ''State' as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In July, 2007 the authority invited sealed offers for allotment of commercial plots on ninety years' lease basis under Commercial Plot Scheme, CPS-02/07, pursuant to which the petitioner participated in the tender process. On 23rd November, 2007 the authority accepted the petitioner's letter of offer and reserved Plot No. SLC-8/G in Sector Delta-II, Greater Noida and called upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.3,79,45,520/-, as reservation-cum-acceptance money being 10% of total premium plus Rs.2,00,00,000/- already deposited, within thirty days, which the petitioner deposited on 20th December, 2007. The authority issued allotment letter dated 04th March, 2008 to the petitioner informing that a plot measuring 18,632 square meters has been allotted to it and demanded a further sum of Rs.11,58,91,040/-, being 20% of the total premium, within three months from the date of such letter i.e. 04th March, 2008. By such allotment letter the authority also informed the liability of the petitioner to pay the balance amount in instalments in accordance with the schedule mentioned in the letter. On 04th June, 2008 petitioner deposited such amount of Rs.11,58,91,040/- and requested the authority to release the lease plan and check list, so that the petitioner may take steps to get the lease-deed registered. Inviting attention to such letter of the petitioner, on 24th June, 2008 Commercial Manager of the authority wrote to General Manager ( Planning) of the authority that lease plan has not been received in the Property Section and requested for making the said lease plan available expeditiously. Inviting attention to such letter of the petitioner, on 24th June, 2008 Commercial Manager of the authority wrote to General Manager ( Planning) of the authority that lease plan has not been received in the Property Section and requested for making the said lease plan available expeditiously. Petitioner again by its letter dated 14th July, 2008 requested the authority to issue lease plan and check list to enable it to get the lease-deed executed, with reference to which Commercial Manager of the authority on 24th July, 2008 again wrote to the General Manager ( Planning) requesting for issuance of lease plan. Ultimately, in August, 2008 petitioner received the lease plan. On 10th September, 2008 the authority intimated the petitioner that area of the plot had got reduced from 18632 square meters to 18012 square meters and accordingly, the payment plan has been altered. Thereafter, by letter dated 22nd September, 2008 the authority again informed the petitioner that since area of the allotted plot has been reduced, now the total cost of the plot will be Rs.56,01,73,200/- and further called upon the petitioner to get the lease deed executed/registered within thirty days from the date of such letter i.e. 22nd September, 2008. However, the petitioner was unable to make the payment of instalments on account of severe financial crunch arose as a sequel to the global recession. On 17th November, 2008 the authority issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why allotment be not cancelled for not getting the lease deed registered within thirty days of letter dated 22nd September, 2008. To such notice, the petitioner gave its reply on 24th November, 2008 pointing out the delay on the part of the authority in giving lease plan and requesting for extension of time upto December, 2008 to get the lease deed registered. Subsequently, to combat the situation arose out of global recession, on 06th January, 2009 the Government of Uttar Pradesh framed a policy decision, whereby the Government sought to mitigate the burden of Real Estate Sector, which had been severely hit by global recession, and made certain concessions to those Real Estate Developers, who had defaulted in payment of instalments on account of recession. Pursuant to such policy, the authority by its office-order dated 12th February, 2009 laid down a detailed procedure to implement the said policy. Pursuant to such policy, the authority by its office-order dated 12th February, 2009 laid down a detailed procedure to implement the said policy. Thereafter, the petitioner by its letter dated 09th March, 2009 sought from the authority a revised schedule of payment consistent with the said policy. Again on 21st March, 2009, petitioner requested the authority for rescheduling of premium instalments and lease rental instalments, issuance of ''No Dues Certificate' and draft of lease deed. On 14th May, 2009 the petitioner formally applied in the prescribed format for rescheduling of the instalments as per new policy and the procedure laid down therein. The Government of Uttar Pradesh amended the aforesaid policy on 25th October, 2009 and provided inter-alia for a moratorium of two years towards payment of balance instalments. In the light of such amendment of policy, the petitioner by means of its letter dated 03rd December, 2009 requested the authority for rescheduling of instalments and the moratorium of two years, and the authority vide its letter dated 17th May, 2010 allowed rescheduled instalments to the petitioner. On 09th July, 2010 the petitioner asked the authority to send a copy of the lease deed, so that lease may be got registered. Again on 28th July, 2010 the petitioner wrote to the authority asking information with regard to total outstanding payments due along with the check list to enable it to get the lease deed registered. However, the authority by the impugned letter/order dated 15th September, 2010 imposed the penalty ( late fee) to a tune of Rs.8,40,25,980/- upon the petitioner for not getting the lease deed registered by 22nd October, 2008 i.e. within one month from the date of issue of check list ( 22nd September, 2008) and directed the petitioner to get the lease deed registered by 21st October, 2010 upon depositing such amount and also directed that in case of further default in registration thereof, the petitioner will be liable to pay an additional penalty ( late fees) @ 2% per month on the total premium. After filing of the writ petition, on 24th March, 2011 the petitioner was served with a cancellation notice dated 17th March, 2011 issued by the authority, which has also been challenged in this writ petition by way of amendment of the writ petition." 6. After filing of the writ petition, on 24th March, 2011 the petitioner was served with a cancellation notice dated 17th March, 2011 issued by the authority, which has also been challenged in this writ petition by way of amendment of the writ petition." 6. The petitioner had challenged the order dated 22nd October, 2008 imposing penalty to the tune of Rs.8,40,25,980/- for failing to get the lease deed executed by 22nd October, 2008, and also 2% additional late fees in case of further delay after 21st October, 2010, on the grounds that the initial delay was on the part of the authority in providing the draft lease deed and checklist to the petitioner. Subsequently the petitioner was to pay the installments and to get 'no dues certificate', which is a prerequisite for granting the lease deed registered. It was alleged that by virtue of the policy of the State Government dated 6.1.2009 as amended on 25.9.2010 the terms and conditions of the original contract was changed by granting two years' moratorium on payment of installments and rescheduling the period of payment. Consequently it was alleged that there was novation of contract and therefore no action could be taken under the earlier contract. The contract did not stipulate any penal charge for the delay in execution of the lease deed nor does the Act stipulates any such charge and therefore the action of authority in levying penal charge is ultra vires the Act, without jurisdiction, arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has placed reliance on Section 7 of the Act, which deals with the power of the authority in respect of transfer of land. It was submitted that no rule or regulation was framed to recall the said exercise of power by the authority and hence the parties were bound by the terms of the contract entered into between them as per the terms and conditions laid down in notice inviting offers but none of the conditions of the notice stipulated the result of penalty or late fees or 2% surcharge. The cancellation notice was also without jurisdiction on account of the fact that the conditions relied upon therein does not appear anywhere in the contract. 7. The cancellation notice was also without jurisdiction on account of the fact that the conditions relied upon therein does not appear anywhere in the contract. 7. The GNIDA authorities have defended the order/letter dated 15.9.2010 as well as the cancellation notice dated 17.3.2011, on the defence detailed in the judgment of this Court dated 8th September, 2011 as follows:- "By filing counter affidavit the authority has contended before this Court that brochure of the scheme provides that commercial plot will be given on "as is where is basis". Clause-G of the brochure provides for variation in the area upto 10% either way, when Clause-W( 2) reserves the right of the authority to make such additionslterations or modifications in the terms and conditions of allotment from time to time as it may consider just ornd expedient. Allotment letter was issued in favour of the petitioner on 04th March, 2008 fixing the instalments of the amount and also by stating that the terms and conditions of the scheme will be binding on the allottee. Schedule of payment of instalments was also clearly mentioned in the allotment letter, according to which first instalment of the petitioner was due on 03rd December, 2008. However, after preparation of lease plan an area of 620 square meters was found less, hence the instalment amount of the petitioner was also adjusted. As the lease plan was not ready, finally the petitioner was informed by letter dated 22nd September, 2008 to get the lease deed executed within thirty days and it is when the petitioner has not got the lease deed executed within such period, a notice was given to the petitioner on 17th November, 2008. Thereafter, by letter dated 17th May, 2010 the authority has rescheduled the instalments of the petitioner. Further, maximum three months' time can always be extended after due payment of charges for extension of time. Moreover, as per the terms and conditions of the brochure, the authority can demand interest on the amount, in payment of which the delay has been caused by the petitioner for not getting the lease deed executed. Section 7 of the Act empowers the authority to lease out the land on the terms and conditions as the authority thinks fit. The petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the brochure particularly Clauses-E and N, therefore, show cause notice dated 17th November, 2008 was issued to it. Section 7 of the Act empowers the authority to lease out the land on the terms and conditions as the authority thinks fit. The petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the brochure particularly Clauses-E and N, therefore, show cause notice dated 17th November, 2008 was issued to it. The petitioner by its letters dated 24th November, 2008 and 28th November, 2008 had requested the authority that since there is recession in the economy, time may be extended to get the lease deed executed upto month of December, 2008, but in December, 2008 also the petitioner could not get the lease deed executed. However, as per the brochure, for the delay and extension of time the petitioner was required to deposit 1% of the total premium. The authority has taken humanitarian view and rescheduled the instalments. The petitioner has not got the lease deed executed and instead of getting the lease deed executed, it has been writing letters to the authority. Therefore, the authority has rightly passed the order dated 15th September, 2010 against the petitioner and charged the penalty as per the terms and conditions of the brochure. The office order clearly provides that penalty should be charged for not getting the lease deed executed. This office order is not under challenge in the writ petition. As per the terms and conditions of the brochure, the authority can amend the terms and conditions of the contract. The petitioner did not got the lease deed executed within thirty days from 22nd October, 2008 nor has deposited the amount for extension of time. There is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The order impugned is just, proper and in accordance with law. When the petitioner has accepted the offer, now it is for the petitioner to accept the offer as a whole or reject as a whole but the same can not be accepted or rejected in parts. At present, since the petitioner has not got the lease deed executed, it is in the category of cancellation of allotment letter. According to the authority, since the writ petition raises highly disputed question of fact and arises out of the contractual matters, the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed." 8. The Court did not agree with the objections taken by GNIDA that in respect of contracts the Court did not have authority to interfere. According to the authority, since the writ petition raises highly disputed question of fact and arises out of the contractual matters, the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed." 8. The Court did not agree with the objections taken by GNIDA that in respect of contracts the Court did not have authority to interfere. Relying upon Mahabir Auto Stores & Ors. v. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors. ( 1990) 3 SCC 752 ; and Tata Cellular v. Union of India, ( 1994) 6 SCC 651 , this Court ruled that the acts of the State in its executive power under Art.298 of the Constitution in entering in contracts with individual parties attracted the equality before the law guaranteed by Art.14 of the Constitution of India. Every action of the State executive authorities must be subject to rule of law and must be governed by these. Where the decision making authority has exceeded its powers, committed an error of law, or a breach of the Rules of natural justice, reached a decision, which no reasonable Tribunal would have reached or abused its powers, the powers of judicial review, to check illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety can be invoked. 9. The findings recorded by this Court in the judgment in earlier writ petition are quoted as follows:- "We have to see the relevant provisions of the Act and the brochure to resolve the issue. We find from the Act that Sections 13 and 15 thereof deal with imposition of penalty. Section 13 speaks about imposition of penalty in case of default on the part of transferee in payment of any consideration money or instalment thereof or any other amount due on account of the transfer of any site or building by the authority. Section 15 deals with violation of erection of building etc. as per Section 8 of the Act, which has no manner of application in this case, therefore, there is no necessity of discussing the same. So far as terms and conditions for allotment of commercial plot under the brochure are concerned, Clause W-6 thereof provides that the registrationllotment/lessee will be governed by the provisions of the Act and by the rules and/or regulations made or directions issued under this Act. So far as terms and conditions for allotment of commercial plot under the brochure are concerned, Clause W-6 thereof provides that the registrationllotment/lessee will be governed by the provisions of the Act and by the rules and/or regulations made or directions issued under this Act. Clause-N of the brochure provides that in the event of failure to enter into the legal documentation and take possession, the allottee shall be liable to pay administrative charges at the rates prescribed from time to time subject to maximum extension of three months from the stipulated due date of execution of legal documents. Clause A-4 of the brochure speaks that the lease deed can be executed within one month after depositing the allotment money, whereas Clause-E( i) of the brochure says that the lease deed will have to be executed within one month from the deposit of allotment money. In the present case, admittedly there is no dispute with regard to initial deposit of Rs.3,79,45,520/- as reservation-cum-acceptance money and thereafter allotment money of Rs.11,58,91,040/-, but no lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner for the reason that preparation of lease plan was not made available and after making it, an area of 620 square meters was found less and accordingly, the instalment amount was directed to be adjusted. The petitioner wanted to take further time for deposit of cost of the plot of Rs.56,01,73,200/- in the rescheduled scheme on account of severe financial crunch as a sequel to the global recession, which was considered by the authority, but surprisingly at the time of execution of lease deed, the authority issued a letter to the petitioner imposing late fee charges to a tune of Rs.8,40,25,980/-. If we go by Section 13 of the Act, we shall be able to find that in case of default on the part of the transferee, the arrear amount will be recovered with further sum by way of penalty. So far as terms and conditions of the agreement are concerned, it appears that in the event of failure to enter into legal documentation and to take possession, allottee shall be liable to pay administrative charges. However, from the impugned order/letter we find that a sum of Rs. 8,40,25,980/-, which is subject matter of dispute herein, has been claimed as late fee charges. However, from the impugned order/letter we find that a sum of Rs. 8,40,25,980/-, which is subject matter of dispute herein, has been claimed as late fee charges. According to us, unlike other laws, the fiscal laws are very much specific in making a claim from a person because any recovery against the law will be treated to be unjust enrichment on the part of the State or the State authority. Section 7 of the Act says that the authority may sell, lease or otherwise transfer whether by auction, allotment or otherwise any land or building belonging to the authority in the industrial development area on such terms and conditions as it may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, think fit to impose. The specific ground of the petitioner is that there is no rule for recovery of the same. So far as intention of the petitioner is concerned, it can be safely construed that it is not merely a prospective purchaser or lessee of the land but has already invested approximately Rs. 15 crores of sum in 2007-08 without getting anything out of it. Against this background, whether the penaltydministrative charges/late fees will be recoverable or dispensable, is required to be determined by the State itself being the financial guardian and, as such, when by virtue of Section 12 of the Act the powers of the State Government in determining the cause as under Section 41 of the Act, 1973, as amended upto date, shall mutatis mutandis apply, it is required to be determined by such authority under such section of the Act." 10. The petitioner made a detailed representation on 22nd September, 2011 supplemented by further representation on 9th January, 2012. On 10th January, 2012 the matter was heard by the Secretary, Industrial Development Division, Government of U.P. Lucknow. On 11th January, 2012 the petitioner wrote a letter to the Secretary giving thanks to him for providing the hearing conducted on 10.1.2012, in which a fair opportunity was given to the petitioner to present its case and reminded him that a written statement was duly submitted. The petitioner submitted that the representative of GNIDA ( Mr. On 11th January, 2012 the petitioner wrote a letter to the Secretary giving thanks to him for providing the hearing conducted on 10.1.2012, in which a fair opportunity was given to the petitioner to present its case and reminded him that a written statement was duly submitted. The petitioner submitted that the representative of GNIDA ( Mr. Pathak, an Assistant in the Authority) had raised three new points namely that the company did not take any initiative for registration of conveyance deed even after writing letters, the conventions being followed to levy penalty of all such cases and the quantum of penalty, and submitted its reply to these three points as follows:- "With your kind permission, we submit as below for record the written version of our statement, as made during the hearing. 1.We made a request for getting registry done in the month of December 2008 vide our letter No.PDL/SLC-8G-DELTALL/2008-09/2598 dated 24.11.2008. The said letter was never replied by the authority. Thereafter we further wrote letters on 21.3.2009, 14.5.2009, 3.12.2009, 22.6.2010, 9.7.2010, 28.7.2010 and 20.8.2010- requesting authority for allowing us early registration of the Conveyance Deed. The authority did not respond about any date or delay except vide letter No.GN/Comml/CPS0258005/2010/OPANO-8618 dated 15.9.2010 indicated huge penalty to be received from us. ( copies of our letters enclosed.) 2.As regards to statement that authority has been uniformly treating such cases, the fact is that I had personally met Dy.CEO, Greater Noida Authority, in his chamber in 1st week of June 2011 to enquire as to the basis of such penalty, though it is only the administrative cost which can be levied as per clause E ( I) of the Brochure, he was kind enough to respond and called Mr. Pathak along with the file to show the basis of such calculation of penalty. In my presence Mr. Pathak had replied that as such there is no decision of CEO till now but we will have to draw equivalence from rules made for such cases for residential plot. Mr. Gupta politely mentioned that size of residential plots and money involved is very small, how same can be applied to bigger commercial plots. Thus our contention is that there were no such approved rules or notification and as such nothing was provided to us, even on personal request. Mr. Gupta politely mentioned that size of residential plots and money involved is very small, how same can be applied to bigger commercial plots. Thus our contention is that there were no such approved rules or notification and as such nothing was provided to us, even on personal request. It will be a different story if authority has applied the same yardstick as applied to us to any commercial plot. 3. As regards to their contention that huge outstanding and loss of such outstanding capital necessitates penalty of such volume, it may please be noted that as per the brochure as well as as per the factual scheme of things, the schedule of payment for 70% premium of plot value was payable in six installments-first installment being due on 3.12.2008, even though the Lease Deed was delayed but payment schedule remained the same as the same is being paid with a pre-determined interest rate. In spite of Lease Deed not done till date, the payment of installments has been rescheduled under government scheme, thus it is miss-leading to say that balance cost of the plot remains outstanding, therefore any delay in Lease Deed will be charged with such huge penalty. In any case there cannot be two penalties- one interest and penalty interest as prescribed for late payment in the brochure itself ( Para F-1.1) and secondly by charging the similar huge amount on delay of Lease Deed. As per the Lease Deed rule, the Lease Deed will have to be completed within 30 days of payment of 30% premium of the plot and such 30% payment was duly deposited by the company in June 2008 itself much before the authority issued Lease Plan and Check List for Lease Deed. We once again submit that condition as stipulated in Para N of Terms of Sale, the alloottee shall be liable to pay administrative charges at rates prescribed from time to time. Please consider that the word administrative charges can be arbitrarily inferred to be as penalty charges as administrative charges rightly refer to the repetitive additional cost of time to be spent by officials on chasing the delay which cannot be related to cost of the property as the work content and cost of delay will be technically same whether it is big or small plot." 11. It appears that the GNIDA submitted further clarification before the Secretary, Industrial Development Division, Government of U.P. Lucknow to which the petitioner submitted its reply on January 31st, 2012 in which a request was made to notice the facts as follows:- 1.The said plot was allotted on 4.3.2008 through a scheme of 16.8.2007 and that all conditions on the sale were to be governed by the brochure of the scheme. The brochure clearly stipulated levy of administrative charges on delay Lease Deed as per the prevailing rates. Please note that as per copy of Note Sheet ( 4.12.2002) submitted by the authority, such penalty was to be limited to only two years delay in Lease Deed, thereafter plot was to be cancelled and if revived, a charge of 10% of the cost was to be levied as penalty. Thus there was no provision for levy of penalty beyond two years. 2.Further second note sheet attached with the reply refers to specific case of fixation of charges for delay in Lease Deed of Commercial properties ( Shops and Kiosks) for specific shops of very small size, all less than 50 sq.mtr. The decision taken on 16.1.2009 for such small shops and Kiosks has been unmindfully applied to a plot of 1.8 Hect. of a basic cost of Rs.56.01 Cr., which is to be governed by conditions of sale brochure. In the name of precedence, the authority has quoted cases relating to only two plots less than 1000 sq.mtr. where total penalty itself was only 1% of the total premium and a few shops, in all cases the cost is low and hence penalty also is low in amount of Rupees, that too though a decision in year 2009, after the events have already occurred. 3.Now the authority is claiming Lease Deed delay penalty itself as on date to be Rs.26.32 Cr. and in few months the penalty of delay in lease deed will exceed even the total cost of the plot. It is strange that the penalty on "delayed payment of installments" for basic price as stipulated in allotment letter of the plot is much less than penalty now proposed to be imposed on the delay in lease deed, that too when company has paid Rs.17.38 Cr. and has not received anything whatsoever as authority has not yet given the possession. It is strange that the penalty on "delayed payment of installments" for basic price as stipulated in allotment letter of the plot is much less than penalty now proposed to be imposed on the delay in lease deed, that too when company has paid Rs.17.38 Cr. and has not received anything whatsoever as authority has not yet given the possession. It is prayed that no condition or rules decided after the time of said allotment be allowed to be imported to the case and delay penalty as was prescribed at the time of allotment letter be applied. This penalty should be limited to 2 years only. Secondly delay due to authority's lapse of providing lease plan and then further due to their complete silence in spite of our many reminders as on record regarding an early registration of lease deed, be considered on account of Authority and no delay penalty for such time be levied on the company. The initial dis-location as such has caused huge business losses to the company and further delay is causing competitive lo9ss of opportunity to the company. It is prayed that delay may be condoned and lease deed be allowed to be done immediately." 12. By the order dated 16.2.2012, giving rise to this writ petition Shri Alok Kumar, the Secretary, Industrial Development Division, Government of U.P., Lucknow has rejected the representation on the grounds that the period of delay caused by GNIDA in preparation of lease plan for the commercial Plot No.SLP 8/G was taken to be 0' period after which the allottee was required to get the lease deed executed. The allottee did not get the lease deed executed within the time stipulated in the contract, and caused unreasonable delay in asking the authority to grant exemption from the late fees, referring to the Government Orders issued by the State Government for the benefit of the companies hit by financial recession, and which was not applicable in the case of the applicant. The late fees was imposed for failing to get the lease deed executed within the time stipulated in the contract on the basis of which such late fees has been made applicable to other cases and thus the request for not charging late fees by the GNIDA was not justified. 13. The late fees was imposed for failing to get the lease deed executed within the time stipulated in the contract on the basis of which such late fees has been made applicable to other cases and thus the request for not charging late fees by the GNIDA was not justified. 13. The State Government in deciding the representation has relied upon the stand taken by the GNIDA, providing the basis of charging late fees on Clause N of the brochure and the Office Order of GNIDA dated 17.5.2002. Clause N in the brochure provided:- "The allottee shall be required to enter into legal documentation and take possession of the commercial plot within the period stipulated in special terms and conditions of the brochure. In the event of failure to do so, allottee shall be liable to pay administrative charges at the rate prescribed from time to time subject to maximum extension of 3 months from the stipulated due date of execution of legal documents. If the allottee fails to execute legal documents within the extended time, action for cancellation of allotment and forfeiture of entire deposited money will be made." 14. The Office Order of the GNIDA dated 17.5.2002 provided for late fees for shops/kiosks/plot at 1% of the total premium for first three months; 2% for second three months; 4% for third three months; and 8% for fourth three months, in all 15% in a year. On the representations made by the allottees the late fees was reduced by the Chief Executive Officer vide his letter dated 4.12.2002. It was reduced to 1% for the first six months; 2% for the second six months; 3% for third six months and 4% for the fourth six months, in all 8% of the total premium. The GNIDA stated in the hearing before the Secretary of the State Government that those allottees, who have not got lease deed executed inspite of the extended period of two years, proposed further extension of 2% of the total premium per month as late fees by the then Chief Executive Officer in its decision taken on 1.1.2009 and that in accordance with the Condition 'N' of the brochure, late fees was imposed on M/s Niti Shree Developers; M/s Neelkhanth Real Estate and M/s Swagat Continental Pvt. Ltd. etc. 15. The GNIDA informed the State Government that subject Plot No.8/G area 18012 sq. mtr. 15. The GNIDA informed the State Government that subject Plot No.8/G area 18012 sq. mtr. in Sector Delta-2, which is a developed densely populated sector, was allotted as a commercial plot to the applicant to be developed for the requirement of people living in the area, who travel long distance for purchasing essential goods. Under the terms and conditions of allotment given in the brochure the project had to be completed within four years of execution of the allotment of the land, or within 3 years and 6 months of the execution of the lease deed, whichever is earlier. The allottee has not got the lease deed executed so far and has not complied with the conditions of the allotment to complete the project within 4 years i.e. upto 3.3.2012 from the date of allotment on 4.3.2008. The allottee was not vigilant and has not taken any steps to complete the project from the very beginning. 16. The GNIDA also contended before the State Government that on the request of the allottee installments were rescheduled on 17.5.2010. The rescheduled installments were not deposited along with interest and that as on 22.2.2012 the allottees required to deposit the balance installment of the premium of Rs.19,40,64,007.66 and the late fees on execution of the lease deed of Rs.26,32,81,404/-. 17. The writ petition was presented on 3.4.2012. On 5.4.2012 the concerned Bench directed it to be placed before some other Bench. On 12.4.2012 this Court passed the following order:- "Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.1. Learned Standing Counsel appears for State-respondent no.2. The respondents are allowed three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. The petitioner will have one week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List on 14.5.2012. Shri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsels appearing for the petitioner-company states that the petitioner is willing to deposit the entire amount. He states that the allotment has not been cancelled as yet. Without making any observations on the merits of the case, we leave it open to the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority to consider the petitioner's offer." 18. He states that the allotment has not been cancelled as yet. Without making any observations on the merits of the case, we leave it open to the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority to consider the petitioner's offer." 18. An application was filed by Shri Santosh Kumar Tripahti appearing for the petitioner on 19.4.2012 without any supporting affidavit for correction of the order dated 12.4.2012, with prayer as follows:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant application and correct the order dated 12.04.2012 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Ambwani, J. and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Naqvi, J. the word "amount" may be deleted and in place thereof "installment" may be substituted, otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury." 19. The application was directed to be listed at the time of hearing of the writ petition. 20. The petitioner has not deposited any amount in pursuance to statement given by the counsel appearing for the petitioner on 12.4.2012. 21. Shri Ravi Kant, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the penalty by way of late fees and further penalty at the rate of 2% per month of the total premium is not laid down anywhere in the Act and is therefore arbitrary. Its imposition is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and deserves to be struck down. Section 7 of the Act provides for selling, lease or otherwise transferred whether by way of allotment or otherwise any land or building belonging to the authority in the industrial development area on such terms and conditions as it may subject to any Rules that may be made under the Act think fit to impose. However, no Rules or Regulations have been framed to regulate the said exercise of power by the authority. The parties are bound by the terms of the contract. None of the conditions laid down in the notice inviting offers for allotment of commercial plots, stipulates the imposition of penalty or levy of late fees or a surcharge at 2%, as is sought to be levied by respondent no.1. The State Government could not have discarded the petitioner's argument that the cases in which late fees was levied were not similar to that of petitioner. The State Government could not have discarded the petitioner's argument that the cases in which late fees was levied were not similar to that of petitioner. The cases in which late fees was levied were in respect of residential plots or for shops and kiosks; the policy would not apply to large commercial plot. He submits that consequent to global recession, which had also hit the Indian economy, the State of U.P. by its policy declaration dated 6.1.2009 as amended by document dated 25.9.2009, granted moratorium of two years on the payment of installments. The policy amended the original contract and its declaration will amount to novation of contract. The State Government failed to consider that the order dated 16.2.2012 has been passed mechanically and without adverting to the specific grounds raised by the petitioner. The Secretary acting in quasi judicial capacity was acting as representative of the Government. The adhoc penalty imposed in exercise of uncontrolled power is arbitrary, and is liable to be set aside. 22. Shri Ravi Kant has relied upon Teri Oat Estates ( P) Ltd. v. U.T. Chandigarh & Ors., ( 2004) 2 SCC 130 ; Managing Director, Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation & Ors. v. Hari Om Enter prises & Anr., ( 2009) 16 SCC 208 and Duda v. Raj Singh Rana, ( 2009) 17 SCC 199 . In Teri Oat Estates ( P) Ltd. ( Supra), the Supreme Court held in paragraphs 41 to 46 as follows:- "41. By reason of the auction held, the land in question has been sold in favour of the appellant. A letter of allotment has been issued in terms thereof. The appellant has been put in possession of the purchased property. In law he was entitled to raise constructions and in fact he has raised a six storied building. He has paid a part of the first instalment and during pendency of the proceeding before the High Court has paid a substantial amount together with interest @ 12% p.a. as enhanced from time to time. 42. The respondents were entitled to pay interest on the unpaid amount @ 7% p.a. which in the event of non-payment was to be paid at a penal rate of 12% and subsequently enhanced to 15 per cent and then to 24 per cent as well the amount of penalty to be levied thereupon. 42. The respondents were entitled to pay interest on the unpaid amount @ 7% p.a. which in the event of non-payment was to be paid at a penal rate of 12% and subsequently enhanced to 15 per cent and then to 24 per cent as well the amount of penalty to be levied thereupon. The entire amount was recoverable through the process of law. In a situation of this nature, having regard to the rival claims made by the parties, if the default is not absolute wilful or a dishonest one but occasioned due to situation which may be beyond one's control, the statutory right of the respondent in resuming the land may not be appropriate, if the entire dues stand discharged. 43. In terms of the provisions of the Act, the respondents are entitled to, ( 1) resumption of the land, ( 2) resumption of the building and ( 3) forfeiture of the entire amount paid or deposited. Having regard to the extreme hardship which may be faced by the parties, the same shall not ordinarily be resorted to. 44. The situation, thus, in our opinion, warrants application of the doctrine of proportionality. 45. The said doctrine originated as far back as in 19^th century in Russia and later adopted by Germany, France and other European countries as has been noticed by this Court in Om Kumar v. Union of India ( 2001 ( 2) SCC 386 ). 46. By proportionality, it is meant that the question whether while regulating exercise of fundamental rights, the appropriate or least restrictive choice of measures has been made by the legislature or the administrator so as to achieve the object of the legislation or the purpose of the administrative order, as the case may be. Under the principle, the court will see that the legislature and the administrative authority "maintain a proper balance between the adverse effects which the legislation or the administrative order may have on the rights, liberties or interests of persons keeping in mind the purpose which they were intended to serve." 23. In Managing Director, Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation & Ors. ( Supra) the Supreme Court held in paragraphs 25, 27 and 31 as follows:- "25. The question as to whether the allottee had failed to comply with the terms and conditions was required to be determined. In Managing Director, Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation & Ors. ( Supra) the Supreme Court held in paragraphs 25, 27 and 31 as follows:- "25. The question as to whether the allottee had failed to comply with the terms and conditions was required to be determined. The terms of the contract would have to be construed having regard to the respective rights and obligations of the parties to perform their part of contract. It provides for issuance of a show cause notice. It provides for refund of the principal amount, of course, without any interest. Resumption of plot, it is trite, would not be automatic. 27. The jurisdiction of a `State\' to resort to the drastic power of resumption and forfeiture ordinarily should be undertaken as a last resort. Keeping in view the fact that the Corporation was obligated to comply with the principles of natural justice and, particularly, in view of the fact that was required to determine the capacity as also bona fide of an entrepreneur to start an industrial undertaking on the plots, the Corporation was required to assign some reasons as to why the plot in question had to be resumed. While doing so, it evidently was required to take into consideration its own conduct. A party cannot take advantage of its own wrong. While a State takes penal action against the allottee, its bona fide would be one of the relevant factors before an order of resumption and forfeiture of the amount deposited is passed. 31. It may be true that ordinarily in a matter of enforcement of a contract qua contract, a writ court shall not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But, it is also trite that where the action of a State is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as being wholly unfair and unreasonable, the writ court would not hesitate to grant relief in favour of a person, where both law and equity demands that such relief should be granted." 24. In HUDA v. Raj Singh Rana ( Supra) the Supreme Court held in paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 as follows:- "24. In HUDA v. Raj Singh Rana ( Supra) the Supreme Court held in paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 as follows:- "24. On such score we are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was entitled, even in terms of the allotment letter to charge interest on balance dues at a rate which was different from that stipulated in the allotment letter. At the same time, we are in agreement with the views expressed in Balbir Singh's case ( supra) which gives an indication of the matters which are required to be considered by the Courts while granting interest where there is no mutual understanding or agreement with regard to the rate of interest that could be charged. While we also agree that for unpaid dues the appellant is entitled to charge interest, such an exercise will have to be undertaken within the parameters of circumstances and reason and the rate of interest should not be fixed arbitrarily. In the decisions referred to hereinabove, this Court has sounded a note of caution that rates of interest fixed by the Courts must not be arbitrary and should take into account the current bank rates which in recent years have shown a tendency to slide downwards. In fact, in many of the aforesaid cases, the rate of interest has been reduced substantially. 25. In the aforesaid circumstances, even though the rate of interest indicated in the allotment letter dated 22.3.1974 may not have application as far as payment of the additional price is concerned, the District Forum has erred on the site of reason and has allowed interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum upon holding that the demand made by the appellant at the higher rate was contrary to the mutual agreement contained in the allotment letter. 26. In our view, even though a policy may have been adopted by the appellant for imposing a deterrent rate of interest on defaults committed by allottees in payment of their dues, such imposition has to be in keeping with the provisions of Section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978 and not in a unreasonable manner. 26. In our view, even though a policy may have been adopted by the appellant for imposing a deterrent rate of interest on defaults committed by allottees in payment of their dues, such imposition has to be in keeping with the provisions of Section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978 and not in a unreasonable manner. It may perhaps be even more pragmatic if a condition regarding charging of interest at the prevailing banking rates were included in the allotment letters, having regard to the provisions of sub-section( 3) of Section 3 of the said Act." 25. Shri Nisheeth Yadav appearing for the GNIDA submits that in the allotment letter dated 4th March, 2008 in continuation to the reservation dated 23.11.2007 the petitioner deposited the reservation money vide its letter dated 24.12.2007 on the plot area of 18632 sq. mtr. at the rate of 31,100 per sq. mtr., of which 20% of the premium was worked out at Rs.11,58,91,040/- as allotment money, which was to be deposited within three months. The first installment of Rs.8,99,12,132/-, with interest became due at the end of six months from the date of deposit of allotment money i.e. on 3.12.2008 and thereafter six monthly installments were to be paid, with the sixth and the last installment of Rs.7,13,21,278/- to be deposited on 3.6.2011 with interest. The petitioner made a request after depositing the allotment money for execution of the lease deed. The Manager, Commercial Properties requested the General Manger ( Project) and General Manager ( Planning), GNIDA on 24th June, 2008 to make the lease plan available in his office for execution of the lease deed and for which a request by way of reminder was also made by the petitioner on 14.7.2008. For some reasons the lease plan was not made available. It was found while preparing lease plan that the area of the land is 18012 sq. mtrs. instead of 18632 sq. mtrs. and thus by a revised schedule dated 10.9.2008 the installments were proportionately reduced and were rescheduled. The first installment accordingly fell due on the same day on 3.12.2008 and the last on 3.6.2011. On 22.9.2008 the lease plan was made available with intimation that the area has been reduced to 18012 sq. mtrs. and accordingly total premium will be of Rs.56,01,73,200/-. The first installment accordingly fell due on the same day on 3.12.2008 and the last on 3.6.2011. On 22.9.2008 the lease plan was made available with intimation that the area has been reduced to 18012 sq. mtrs. and accordingly total premium will be of Rs.56,01,73,200/-. The registration of the lease deed will be made on deposit of 30% according to the payment schedule dated 10.9.2008 for which lease rent of 2.5% of the premium of Rs.1,40,04,330/- may be deposited. The non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.3,57,11,050/- purchased from the Treasury, Gautam Budh Nagar was to be made available for execution of the lease deed. The petitioner was also informed about the other requirements regarding submission of photographs attested by the Authorised Representation of the bank or a gazetted officer; registration fees of 2% of lease deed or Rs.5100/-, whichever is less and the presence of two witnesses for execution of the lease deed. 26. It is submitted by Shri Nisheeth Yadav that the petitioner did not take any interest in getting the lease deed executed within 30 days of providing lease plan and other requirements given in the letter dated 22.9.2008 and consequently on 17.9.2008, a notice was given to show cause within 15 days as to why the allotment be not cancelled. The Government Order dated 6th January, 2009 as modified by the subsequent Government Order dated 25.10.2009 is not applicable to the petitioner in as much as the benefit of the recommendations was to be given only to such defaulter applicants, who were unable to deposit the installments on account of global economic recession, which was likely to affect the demand in the real estate market provided such defaulters had taken effective steps for implementing the project and for which defaulters were given an option to either complete the entire project or to exit from the project. The petitioner did not take interest in getting the lease deed executed after depositing the reservation and allotment money. The period of 30 days in getting the lease deed executed expired on 21.9.2008, whereas the claim for granting benefits to real estate developers, who were not in a position to deposit their installments, was initiated by the Government Order on 6th January, 2009. The petitioner had nowhere stated in his representation that it was unable to deposit installments on account of economic recession. The petitioner had nowhere stated in his representation that it was unable to deposit installments on account of economic recession. There was no representation with regard to financial constraints including the balance sheets of the company. Infact the petitioner had failed to comply with the essential terms and conditions of execution of the lease deed, which was condition precedent for depositing the installments of the premium and lease rent. 27. Shri Nisheeth Yadav submits that the GNIDA has not calculated the late fees for the period of delay in providing the lay out plan to the petitioner. Late fees has been calculated from the date of expiry of 30 days from the letter dated 22.9.2008 with which lay out and other conditions by execution of lease deed were provided. The GNIDA has not acted arbitrarily, as the late fees has been imposed on all real estate developers, who have in accordance with the Office Order dated 17.5.2002 conditions of which were relaxed on 4.12.2002 for not getting lease deed executed within time. Infact the petitioner has not only delayed the execution of lease deed but has also failed to deposit the installments it has also failed to abide by the undertaking given through its counsel to the Court on 12.4.2012, that it is willing to deposit the entire amount, as by that date entire time period in the revised schedule of payment had come to an end. 28. In Teri Oat Estates ( P) Ltd. ( Supra) the Supreme Court in the facts and circumstances of the case in which letter of allotment was issued, and the appellant has been put in possession of the purchased property had infact raised a six storied building and also paid first installment during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court together with interest as enhanced from time to time. It was held that default was not absolutely willful or dishonest but occasioned due to situation, which was beyond the control of the appellant and thus statutory right of the respondents in resuming the land was not appropriate, if the entire dues stand discharged. 29. In Managing Director, Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation & Ors. ( Supra), the Corporation had not handed over the actual possession for two years despite issuing the letter of offer. 29. In Managing Director, Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation & Ors. ( Supra), the Corporation had not handed over the actual possession for two years despite issuing the letter of offer. The Corporation, which had set time limit for ensuring that the commercial production starts at an early date was expected to send a reminder. It was also found that for the purposes of approval of the building plan time taken by the Corporation also was relevant factor before passing an order for resumption and thus in the circumstances action of the State was violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. 30. In HUDA v. Raj Singh Rana ( Supra) it was held that for unpaid dues HUDA was entitled to charge interest but such exercise was to be undertaken within the parameters of circumstances and the reason and the rate of interest should not have been fixed arbitrarily and such imposition should have been made keeping with the provisions of Section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978 and not in any unreasonable manner. 31. The fact situation in the present case is entirely different and is not comparable to the facts in any of the judgment cited by the Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. In the present case this Court had directed the State Government to consider the circumstances and justification of the imposition of late fees and for issuance of the notice for cancellation of the lease deed. The State Government considered the circumstances in which after depositing the reserve price and the allotment money, the petitioner failed to take steps for execution of the lease deed despite the availability of the lease plan and other conditions for execution of the lease deed with the petitioner on 22.9.2008 and the request for execution of the lease deed within 30 days. The Government Order dated 6.1.2009 came to be issued after the time period for compliance of the conditions for execution of the lease deed had expired. Even otherwise the petitioner did not qualify for grant of relaxation as neither any financial constraints were established by filing the profit and loss account and balance sheets, nor any steps were taken to purchase stamp papers and execution of lease deed. The petitioner did not take any interest at all in completing the project. Even otherwise the petitioner did not qualify for grant of relaxation as neither any financial constraints were established by filing the profit and loss account and balance sheets, nor any steps were taken to purchase stamp papers and execution of lease deed. The petitioner did not take any interest at all in completing the project. The petitioner made a request on which time was granted for execution of the lease deed, giving some relaxation to the petitioner on the percentage of the premium as late fees as it was provided to other real estate developers. The petitioner not only failed to take the advantage of the relaxation, but also committed defaults in payment of instalments, and the statement given to the Court that it is ready to deposit the entire amount. In the meantime, the entire period of 4 years within which the project had to be executed from the date of allotment, and within 3 years and 6 months from the date of execution of the lease deed expired. We find that the petitioner has also not cared to challenge the Office Order dated 17.5.2002 by which the late fees for not getting the lease deed executed provided and was subsequently reduced on 4.12.2002. 32. We do not find any averment in the writ petition nor the petitioner has placed on record any such facts and circumstances from which the Court may accept the submission that the petitioner was and is still ready and willing to perform its part of the contract by depositing the entire amount including late fees and in executing the project. The allotment of the commercial plot was made to the petitioner for integrated development of the block area and for providing necessary facilities to the people, who have occupied the surrounding sectors. The petitioner has not carried out its obligations and appears to be only delaying the project for taking advantage of the rising prices of the real estate. 33. We do not find any good ground to interfere and to grant any relief to the petitioner. The petitioner has made itself liable for cancellation of allotment by its own conduct, and for forfeiture of the amounts deposited by it, in terms of the conditions of allotment. 34. The writ petition is dismissed with costs to be paid by petitioners to respondents for defending the case.