JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Sukumar Patt Joshi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kartikeya Singh and Ratnesh Kumar Singh for the petitioner and Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The instant petition has been preferred seeing quashing of a demand notice dated 27 April 2018 in terms of which the petitioner has been called upon to clear dues amounting to Rs. 349,60,48,342/- in respect of a Group Housing Project located at Sector 93 B, NOIDA. A further writ is sought for directing the respondent Authority to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 23 January 2018 and 15 May 2018. 3. Pursuant to a notice inviting tenders issued by the respondent Authority on 18 May 2006, the petitioner appears to have applied for allocation of a plot admeasuring 1,20,000 square metres. The plot was allotted to the petitioner on or about 7 August 2006 and ultimately a letter of allotment issued on 3 October 2006. According to the petitioner it was regular in the payment of its instalments up to 2008-09 whereafter and on account of the gargantuan economic crisis which befell the real estate market, it fell into arrears. The petitioner thereafter applied for reschedulment of its outstanding dues and by a letter dated 29 April 2016 was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs. 36,59,89,197/- as a precondition for the reschedulment of dues. This communication further discloses that as on 31 May 2016, the petitioner owed a sum of Rs. 171,08,34,637/-. The Authority further informed the petitioner that in case the amount stipulated as a precondition is deposited, it would consider rescheduling dues to the extent of Rs. 145,42,09,441/-. The petitioner did not comply with the preconditions imposed and admittedly deposited only Rs. 3 crores after the issuance of the communication aforementioned. Notwithstanding the failure on the part of the petitioner to comply with the conditions imposed in the offer for reschedulment dated 29 April 2016, the Authority gave it yet another opportunity to apply for reschedulment subject to deposit of a sum of Rs. 32,73,75,787/-. Even this offer was not complied with by the petitioner. The Authority gave the petitioner yet another opportunity to apply for reschedulment of its outstanding dues as per terms contained in its letter dated 9 September 2016. In terms of this communication, the petitioner was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs. 30,25,45,077/-. 32,73,75,787/-. Even this offer was not complied with by the petitioner. The Authority gave the petitioner yet another opportunity to apply for reschedulment of its outstanding dues as per terms contained in its letter dated 9 September 2016. In terms of this communication, the petitioner was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs. 30,25,45,077/-. Yet again this amount stipulated as a prerequisite for the consideration of its prayer for reschedulment was not paid. 4. On 15 December 2016, the State Government formulated a Project Settlement Policy aimed at streamlining various real estate projects falling under the jurisdiction of the NOIDA, Greater NOIDA and the Yamuna Expressway Authorities. In terms of this policy, certain rehabilitative measures were to be adopted in order to secure as well as balance the interest of thousands of flat owners as well as developers and project proponents. The representations made by the petitioner and referred to in the relief clause seek shelter of the Project Settlement Policy and the extension of benefits flowing thereunder. It is also pertinent to note that the project unrolled by the petitioner pursuant to the allotment made in its favour in 2006 has not been completed till date. Various flat owners aggrieved by the defaults committed by the Developers in NOIDA including those who held properties in the project in question instituted WritC No. 10854 of 2018. In this petition, the flat owners raised the issue of defaults on the part of the petitioner and the consequential refusal of the Authority to issue a completion certificate. After considering the submissions advanced, a Division Bench of the Court on 23 March 2018 passed the following detailed order: “Heard Mr. Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Kaushlendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for respondents Development Authority. We have perused prayers made in the writ petition and other materials placed before us. It appears from the lease deed dated 29.12.2006, respondent no. 3 was expected to pay a lease premium of Rs.268,98,54,712/- (Rupees Two Hundred Sixty Eight Crores Ninety Eight Lacs Fifty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Twelve Only) on or before 3.10.2010. It further appears that a substantial amount had been waved by the Development Authority (vide their letter dated 28.10.2010 Annexure4) and a fresh schedule of payment of the said amount had been prepared. It further appears that a substantial amount had been waved by the Development Authority (vide their letter dated 28.10.2010 Annexure4) and a fresh schedule of payment of the said amount had been prepared. Till today, we are informed, respondent no.3 has not paid the lease premium and as of today, he is in arrears of Rs.250 crores. In the questioned project, respondent no. 3 has already constructed 22 towers and the Development Authority has issued completion/occupation certificates in respect thereof. We are further informed that respondent no. 3 has some more projects, which are under development and application for occupation/completion certificates in case of same towers are pending with them. In view thereof, we issue notice to respondent no.3, returnable on 20.4.2018. In addition to Court notice, the petitioners to serve notice to respondent no.3 by registered post with AD/Speed Post/Courier and to file proof of service. In the meanwhile, we direct respondents Development Authority not to issue occupation/completion certificates in respect of remaining towers, if any, in the project in question and also in other projects within their jurisdiction. The Development Authority shall not allow respondent no.3 to part with possession of any apartment either in this project or in any other projects within their jurisdiction till the next date. It is, however, made clear that if respondent no.3 deposits the entire arrears of lease premium with interest, if any, it would be open to the Development Authority to deal with their application for completion/occupation certificates in respect of other projects within their jurisdiction before the next date on merits in accordance with law. S.O. to 20.4.2018.” (emphasis supplied) 5. The aforesaid petition is still pending disposal before this Court. 6. In support of this petition, it was contended that the representations of the petitioner for extension of benefits under the Project Settlement Policy has remained unattended and had not been disposed of by the Authority. However, bearing in mind the huge liability owed by the petitioner to the Authority, we proceeded to examine whether the petitioner would be entitled to avail the benefits of the Project Settlement Policy even if it were assumed to be in vogue and prevalent on date. However, bearing in mind the huge liability owed by the petitioner to the Authority, we proceeded to examine whether the petitioner would be entitled to avail the benefits of the Project Settlement Policy even if it were assumed to be in vogue and prevalent on date. The following paragraphs of the policy document would be relevant for our purposes and are therefore extracted herein below: ^^¼1½ ;g lqfo/kk dsoy mUgha vkoafV;ksa dks vuqeU; djkbZ tk;xh] ftUgkasus vkoafVr ifjlEifr dk iV~VkÁys[k fu”ikfnr djk fy;k x;k gSA ¼2½ vfrns;rk dh iqufu/kkZj.k dh lqfo/kk ds vUrZxr ewy fdLrksa ds isesaV Iyku dh vfrns;rk ,oa iwoZ esa iqufu/kkZfjr ¼fj&f’k;MqyesaV½ Hkqxrku rkfydk dh vfrns;rk rFkk 64-2 Áfr’kr vfrfjDr Áfrdkj dh /kujkf’k dh vfrns;rk dks tksM+rs gq, tks /kujkf’k vkxf.kr gksxh mldh 25 Áfr’kr /kujkf’k ,d eq’r Hkqxrku 30 fnu ds Hkhrj ¼30 fnu dh vof/k ij lk/kj.k C;kt vf/kjksfir fd;k tk;sxk½ tks fd vkoaVh }kjk fu/kkZfjr lhek ds varxZr tek djuk gksxk A ‘ks”k 64 Áfr’kr vfrns; /kujkf’k o Hkfo”; dh fd’rksa ¼64-7 Áfr’kr vfrfjDr Áfrdj dh /kujkf’k lfgr½ dks dSfiVykbt+ (Capitalized) djds dSfiVykbt+ /kujkf’k ij ¼;kstuk ds czsk’kj esa vuqeU; C;kt lfgr½ Nekgh lkeku fd’rksa esa iqufu/kkZj.k bl Ádkj fd;k tk;sxk dh iqufu/kkZfjr /kujkf’k ds Hkqxrku ds fy, vf/kdre vof/k vkoafVr Hkw[kaM dh Hkqxrku ;kstuk dh ewy Hkqxrku vof/k ds nksxquk vFkok 10 o”kZ tks Hkh de gks] ls vf/kd ugha gksxh] ftldh x.kuk ewy vkoaVu dh frfFk ls dh tk,xhA ¼3½ vkosnd@fcYMj dks Áf/kdj.k ls iqufu/kkZj.k i= mijksDruqlkj vkxf.kr /kujkf’k dk 25 Áfr’kr ,d eq’r tek djus ds mijkar gh tkjh fd;k tk;sxkA ;g lqfo/kk dsoy ,d gh ckj vuqeU; gksxhA ;fn vkoaVh@iV~Vk /kkjd@mi&iV~Vk /kkjd }kjk ;g lqfo/kk ÁIr djus esa foQy gksrk gS rks] ,slh fLFkfr esa fu/kkZfjr le;kof/k ds i’pkr czks’kj@yht+MhM@lcyht+ MhM esa mYysf[kr Ákfo/kkukas ds vk/kkj ij fcuk fdlh iwoZ lwpuk ds vkoaVu@yht+MhM dks fujLr dj fn;k tk;sxkA ftlds fy, vkoaVh@iV~Vk/kkjd@mi&iV~Vk/kkjd Lo;a ftEesnkj gksxkA** (emphasis supplied) 7. These conditions stand encapsulated in paragraph 4 B of the Government Order dated 15 December 2016. It is not disputed that the petitioner does qualify condition (1) which requires an allottee seeking benefits of the policy to be one who holds a duly executed lease deed of the allotted land in its favour. Condition No. (2) thereafter lays down the formula on the basis of which the amount to be rescheduled is to be computed. It is not disputed that the petitioner does qualify condition (1) which requires an allottee seeking benefits of the policy to be one who holds a duly executed lease deed of the allotted land in its favour. Condition No. (2) thereafter lays down the formula on the basis of which the amount to be rescheduled is to be computed. What is however significant is Condition No. (3) which clearly provides that the letter of reschedulment would be issued only upon a deposit of 25% of the total amount computed in terms of paragraph (2). In fact a conjoint reading of conditions (2) and (3) evidence that the amount liable to be settled and rescheduled is not left in the realm of speculation but clearly defined. As a condition precedent to the issuance of a letter of settlement, the project proponent is mandated to deposit 25% of the total amount computed in accordance with condition no. (2). The petitioner was therefore obliged to make deposits in terms of condition no. (3) to seek consideration of its representations. It is not disputed before us that although representations were made by the petitioner for extending benefits of this Policy, the amount as contemplated under Paragraph 4 B (3) was neither tendered nor deposited. 8. In order to complete the record it would also be pertinent to record here that even in the course of hearing of this petition, no offer was made on behalf of the petitioner that it was ready and willing to deposit the amount due in terms of condition no. (3) referred to above even though learned counsel was asked to address on this aspect. 9. We further record that in order to lend a quietus to the controversy and to enable the petitioner to salvage the project, we called upon the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner to take instructions and apprise the Court of the amount which the petitioner was willing to deposit even today to facilitate a consideration of its representation and to establish its bona fides. The matter was accordingly adjourned for some time to enable the learned senior counsel to do so. 10. When the matter was taken up thereafter for hearing again all that was stated was that the Court may fix whatever amount it deemed reasonable. The matter was accordingly adjourned for some time to enable the learned senior counsel to do so. 10. When the matter was taken up thereafter for hearing again all that was stated was that the Court may fix whatever amount it deemed reasonable. There was thus no commitment or offer made by the petitioner so as to enable the Court to proceed in this direction further. The query of the Court with regard to the total moneys collected from the various flat owners was also not answered and no details were disclosed. Interestingly in Ground '(G)' of the writ petition, the petitioner discloses that it holds a profit of Rs. 45 crores in the project and that the said sum continues to be available in its hands. On being asked as to whether petitioner in order to establish its bona fides was ready and willing to deposit at least this amount to be placed in escrow, learned Senior Counsel stated that the petitioner was unable to deposit the sum referred to above. 11. In the absence of any offer being advanced by the petitioner to establish its bona fides, this Court finds no ground to invoke its equitable jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution. Although the petitioner owes a sum of more than Rs. 300 crores to the respondent Authority, it has established no intention to clear the outstanding dues. The record of proceedings taken before this Court further establishes that the petitioner is not even willing to establish its bona fides despite ample opportunity being granted. This Court therefore, finds itself unable to grant any relief to the petitioner. 12. The petition is consequently dismissed.