JUDGMENT : Arindam Mukherjee, J. 1. The appeal is at the instance of the respondents in the writ petition. The writ petitioners are the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the appeal. The appellants challenge the final order dated 16th July, 2018 allowing the writ petition in terms of prayer (a) thereof. The prayers in the writ petition are set out herein under for the sake of convenience:- (a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and each one of them, their men, agents and/or assigns to cancel and/or set aside and/or to forthwith rescind and/or withdraw the memo 3175/KMDA/MM/BP-71/2007 dated 14/01/2010 issued by the Administrative Officer and Estate Manager, M.M Unit of the KMDA being the demand notice of Penal charges imposed upon the Petitioner no. 1 for delayed construction on the plots the aforesaid Penal charge for delayed construction calculated as @8% on Rs. 15 lakh per cottah per annum, marked as annexure "P/6" to the Writ Petition. (b) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and each of them, their men, agents and/or assigns to cancel and/or set aside and/or to forth with rescind and/or withdraw the memo no. 928/KMDA/MM/BP-71/2007 dated 02/12/2015 being a 'Final Reminder' and Demand Notice for payment of sum of Rs. 46,40,314/- (Rs. Forty Six Lakh Forty Thousand Three Hundred Fourteen only) marked as annexure "P/12" to the Writ Petition. (c) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and each one of them, their men, agents and/or assigns to cancel and/or set aside and/or all proceedings in respect of imposition of charges in respect of the plots of land in question. (d) A writ in the nature of Certiorari do issue calling upon the Respondents and each one of them to certify and transmit the original records of the case, before this Hon'ble court so that conscionable justice may be rendered to the Petitioner. (e) Rule NISI in terms prayer (a), (b), (c) and (d) hereinabove. (f) An Interim order of stay of the impugned memo no. 928/KMDA/MM/BP-71/2007 dated 02/12/2015 being a 'Final Reminder' and Demand Notice for payment of sum of Rs. 46,40,314/- (Rs. Forty Six Lakh Forty Thousand Three Hundred Fourteen only) marked as annexure "P/21" to the Writ Petition along with all previous demands made in this connection till disposal of the instant Writ petition. 928/KMDA/MM/BP-71/2007 dated 02/12/2015 being a 'Final Reminder' and Demand Notice for payment of sum of Rs. 46,40,314/- (Rs. Forty Six Lakh Forty Thousand Three Hundred Fourteen only) marked as annexure "P/21" to the Writ Petition along with all previous demands made in this connection till disposal of the instant Writ petition. (g) An Interim order of injunction restraining the respondent authorities from interfering with the petitioners' possession of the plots in question till disposal of the Writ petition. (h) Ad-interim order in terms of prayer (f) and (g); (i) Make the Rule absolute if no cause or insufficient cause is shown by the respondents; (j) And/or pass such other or further order or orders as to Your Lordship may deem fit and proper. 2. The facts of the case reveals that by a registered document described as "Deed of License" dated 28th September, 2008 KMDA, the appellant no.1 leased out an aggregate area of 38.049 cottah being plot no S-406 and P-12 to the respondent no.1/writ petitioner no.1 for a period of 99 years on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Some of the relevant terms of the said document are reproduced herein under:- (ii) To pay all rent taxes and other impositions in respect of the aforementioned land and structures to be erected thereon which are or may be assessed to be payable by the owner or the occupier in respect thereof during the term of the License. Some of the relevant terms of the said document are reproduced herein under:- (ii) To pay all rent taxes and other impositions in respect of the aforementioned land and structures to be erected thereon which are or may be assessed to be payable by the owner or the occupier in respect thereof during the term of the License. (iii) At the own cost of the Licensee, within 24 months from the date of issue of allotment letter of within such further time as the Authority may as its option allow in writing on sufficient and reasonable grounds, to start Construction for the purpose of setting up an Institution under the name and style as Dinabandhu Andrews of Institute of Technology& Management for opening MBA & MCA Courses in East Kolkata Area Development Project Baishnabghata Patuli Area Development Project with boundary walls, sewers and drains in accordance with plans sanctions and specifications as shall be approved by the appropriate authorities on payment of such fees as required, in accordance with the Building Rules of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, with the requirement of any Land Use and Development Control Regulations of the Authority or the requirements of any other statutory rules and regulations of local or statutory body framed for the purpose and licensee shall complete the construction works of the project within 36 months from the date of issue of allotment letter. The allotment letter was issued on 23rd March, 2007. 3. It will appear from Clause 4(ii) of the said document that the licensee (writ petitioner/respondent no. 1) is liable to pay all rent, taxes and other impositions in respect of the land and structure to be erected therein. Clause 4 (iii) threrof provides that the licensee within 24 months from the date of issue of allotment letter or within such further time as the authority may at its option allow in writing on sufficient and reasonable ground to start the construction. The said Clause further provides that on failure on part of the licensee to start construction within two years or within the extended time and/or complete the construction works of the project within three years from the date of issue of the allotment letter the license shall be terminated by the authority with deduction of 20 per cent of premium paid by the licensee as service charge and the remaining amount shall be refunded without any interest. 4. 4. The respondent no.1/writ petitioner was not able to commence construction within 24 months from the date of allotment and, as such, applied for extension of time to KMDA. In response to such request, KMDA by a letter dated 14th January, 2010 agreed to extend the time for obtaining KMC sanction building plan and commencement of the construction work of the project by 6 months, that is, up to June, 2010 on the condition that the respondent no.1/writ petitioner will have to pay penalty amount @ 10 per cent of the current land value on Rs. 15 Lakh per cottah per annum. This letter was immediately replied to by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner vide letter dated 27th January, 2010, which was also received by the appellant on the same date requesting the appellant no. 1 to exempt the penalty. Subsequently, by a letter dated 21st April, 2011 the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner was called for a hearing on 29th April, 2011, inter alia, on the issues mentioned in the said letter including the issue as to payment of penalty charges applicable for extension of time. The said hearing notice was replied by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner by a letter dated 29th April, 2011. 5. The respondent no.1/writ petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 7,39,610/- on account of one eighth of the penalty charge on the date of hearing in the office of the Special Secretary, KMDA, Prashasan Bhavan, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064 on 29th April, 2011. The order dated 29th April, 2011 records that:- "They have been requested to pay the penal charges applicable for extn. of time granted to them on 14.01.2010. It was requested by the allottee to allow them to pay in installments. Hence, it was decided that for previous extn. they have to pay at least one installment of claim preferably one fourth and for future they should seek extn. of time from the competent authority since the period within which the construction was to be completed has already lapsed." 6. By a letter dated 14th June, 2011 KMDA demanded a sum of Rs. 59,16,880/- as penalty charges for extension of time from the period from 23rd March, 2009 to 30th June 2010, that is, for a period of one year one hundred days. The penalty charges were to be paid within thirty days from the date of issue of the said letter. 59,16,880/- as penalty charges for extension of time from the period from 23rd March, 2009 to 30th June 2010, that is, for a period of one year one hundred days. The penalty charges were to be paid within thirty days from the date of issue of the said letter. On issuance of the said letter subsequent to the prayer made for waiver by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner was impliedly refused the prayer for waiver, though no specific decision is reflected in said letter dated 14th June, 2011. 7. The respondent no. 1/writ petitioner subsequently paid a further sum of Rs. 7,39,610/- on 7th July, 2011. The aggregate of the two payments is Rs. 14,73,220/-, that is, one fourth of the penal charges amounting to Rs. 59,16,880/-. 8. The records further reveal that by a letter dated 4th November, 2011, the respondent no.1/writ petitioner alleged to have been directed by the Special Secretary KMDA, by an order to pay at least one fourth of the total penal charges imposed in the first phase and then seek extension of time. In terms of that order. The payment of Rs. 14,79,220 was made as sought to be alleged by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner on such basis. 9. We find no letter contradicting such stand of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner though the same was replied by KMDA by their letter dated 24th February, 2012. The appellant as appears from the record thereafter by a letter dated 24th February, 2012 refused the prayer for waiver of penalty as per the Land & Flat Allotment Policy of the Authority. The respondent no.1/writ petitioner was, therefore, requested to deposit the balance penalty charges. 10. By a letter dated 2nd December, 2015 the KMDA gave a final reminder as demand notice for the penalty charges imposed to grant for extension of time and requested the respondent no.1/writ petitioner, inter alia, to deposit a sum of Rs. 46,40,314/-, being the balance sum. 11. The writ petitioners as will appear from the prayers of the writ petition set out hereinabove, therefore, challenged the memo dated 14th January, 2010 and 2nd December, 2015 by which the penal charges were imposed and the final reminder for payment of balance sum of Rs. 46,40,314/- were respectively given by the KMDA. 12. Before the learned Single Judge the matter appears to have been extensively argued by the parties. 46,40,314/- were respectively given by the KMDA. 12. Before the learned Single Judge the matter appears to have been extensively argued by the parties. Before us, we find that the same argument has been advanced by the parties. 13. On a conjoint reading the two Clauses, that is, 4(ii) and 4(iii) as reproduced hereinabove we find that the authority, that is, Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (appellant no.1) had the right to extend the time period of 24 months from the date of issue of allotment letter fixed for the licensee to start construction. The authority also has the right to terminate the license and deduct 20 per cent of premium as paid by the licensee on the failure of the licensee to commence construction within the time frame or extended time frame or to complete the construction work of the project within three years from the date of issue of allotment letter. But the authority does not have the right to impose penalty charges for granting extension. 14. We are in agreement with the learned Single Judge on the issue that the deed of license does not provide for realization of any liquidated damages by the KMDA in the event of failure on the part of the licensee to commence the construction within the 24 months time frame. The unreported judgment dated 8th May, 2018 of the Division Bench in Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority & Anr. Vs. South City Projects (Kolkata) Limited & Anr. relied upon by the appellant has no manner of application as the respondent no.1/writ petitioner cannot be equated with a developer like South City Projects (Kolkata) Limited and that the contract does not provide for any amount stipulated as a reasonable estimation of actual damages to be recovered by one party, if the other party breaches being the basis of liquidated damages. Penalty charges is punitive in nature and imposition thereof has to be specified in the agreement, itself. There is no such provision in the agreement. We also feel that penalty as per Land & Flat Allotment Policy of the Authority cannot have any manner of application to the case of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner since it is an educational institution operated by a trust without any profit seeking motive and not a commercial organization governed only by the profit making motive to be treated in the same line by applying such policy. We also find that KMDA has granted reduction in the license fee payable by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner by charging reduced rate than the prevailing rate applicable to others considering the status of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner to be a trust operating educational institution without profit making motive. That apart, the exemptions granted by several authorities goes on to show that respondent no.1/writ petitioner is an educational institution formed to advance such cause out of its earnings after meeting the overheads. 15. KMDA as per the provisions of the Deed of License would have been well within its right to terminate the license on the failure of the licensee to commence construction within 24 months from the allotment. KMDA did not resort to such right. On the contrary, invoked the provision of Clause 4(iii) of the said Deed of License to extend the time. Having done so, KMDA could not have demanded penalty charges at the market rate as a condition attached to the extension of time. 16. In order to overcome the hurdle as to its right to impose penalty charges, KMDA relied upon the provisions of Clause 4 (ii) to contend that the penalty charges falls within "impositions" as mentioned in the said clause. We are unable to accept such argument. On applying the provisions of ejusdem generis, we have no other option that to hold that "impositions" in Clause 4(ii) should be in line with other words used their, that is, rent, taxes etc and does not cover "penalty charges". 17. It is apparent that from the very beginning the respondent no.1/writ petitioner had prayed for waiver of the penal charges. Moreover, it appears from the correspondences that the respondent no.1/writ petitioner paid Rs. 14,79,220/- relying upon the impressions said to have been given by the Secretary to pray for extension after making payment of one fourth sum of the aggregate penal charges. We find that the payment made by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner in absence of KMDA's right to impose penal charges is at best a voluntary payment without insisting upon waiver as or contending the same to be not legally reasonable it was open to the respondent no.1/writ petitioner not to pay any part or portion of the penalty charges when it found that KMDA was insisting upon penalty charges. Having done so, it should be also held that the respondent no.1/writ petitioner is estopped from claiming refund of such sum by contending the payment to have been made under mistake of law. The respondent no.1/writ petitioner, however, cannot be said to be estopped from challenging the notice of demand issued by the KMDA, the appellant upon making part payment for the simple reason it prayed for waiver from the very beginning and made payment by construing the order of the Secretary to be an assurance to grant extension if prayed after paying one fourth thereof. It cannot be said that the respondent no.1/writ petitioner took the benefit of extension on part payment or it accepted the imposition of penalty charges particularly when the time to completion of the project has lapsed in the meantime when the issue of imposition of penalty charges was under challenge. 18. In the facts and circumstances of the case and upon considering that the appellant is a body corporate constituted under the West Bengal Town and Country (Planning & Development) Act, 1979 and that respondent no.1/writ petitioner being a trust operating educational institution without profit making motive we hold that neither the respondent no.1/writ petitioner will have any right to claim refund of Rs. 14,79,220/- with or without interest nor the KMDA the appellant no.1 will have any obligation to refund the said sum of Rs. 14,79,220/- with or without interest. In the light of the observations made hereinabove, we set aside the notice dated 23rd December, 2012 demanding penalty charges of Rs. 59,16,880/- and the final demand claiming Rs. 46,40,314/-and all proceeding in respect of imposition of penalty charges. We direct the appellant/KMDA to issue the "no objection" to the respondent no.1/writ petitioner in the light of our observation particularly when the time to complete the construction has lapsed as recorded by the Secretary by the Secretary in his order dated 29th April, 2011 during the pendency of the adjudication 19. The appeal and the application filed therein are disposed of accordingly. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.