JUDGMENT : TABLE OF CONTENTS S.No. Heading Page nos. 1 Facts of the case 3-7 2 Present Sports City Scheme 02 in Sector 150 7-17 3 CAG Report 17-19 4 Board meeting of the NOIDA Authority 19-21 5 Prayers made in the leading writ petition 21-24 6 Prayers made in the connected writ petitions 24-33 7 Arguments on behalf of petitioners 33-37 8 Arguments on behalf of respondents 37-44 9 Change in shareholdings of various companies 44-45 10 Further arguments of the petitioners 45 11 Analysis by the Court 45-46 A. Deviations 46-47 (I) Formation of the Scheme 47-48 (II) Approval of Bid 48 (III) Failure on behalf of NOIDA Authority 48-51 B. Illegal sale 51-52 C. Outstanding dues of the Sports cities 52-55 D. Illegal benefits to the allottees 56-61 E. Need for lifting of corporate veil 61-62 F. Liabilities of the original allottees with regard to its subsidiaries 62-66 G. Conduct of the petitioners 67-70 H. Withdrawal of the writ petitions 70 12 Scope of judicial intervention 70-73 13 Enquiry against the delinquent officers and other conspirators by C.B.I. 73-77 14 Conclusion 77-79 1. All the aforesaid writ petitions have been clubbed and heard together as they involve similar issue, and hence, they are being decided by this common judgement and order. 2. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Prateek Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Mohan Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent nos.1 and 3 and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh and Ms.Anjali Gokhlani, learned counsel for respondent no. 2-Noida Authority. FACTS OF THE CASE 3. Board of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, [NOIDA] took a decision on 16.8.2004 to develop sports facilities of international standards in NOIDA. In the next meeting held on 25.6.2007 the Board came to a conclusion that since there are no sports facilities available in NOIDA, hence an area of 311.60 hectares was marked for development of the sports city. In the next Board meeting held on 8.4.2008, it was resolved, keeping the upcoming Commonwealth Games-2010 in mind, that the land use of Sector 76,78,79,101, 102, 104 and 107 be changed for the development of the sports city. In the next Board meeting held on 8.4.2008, it was resolved, keeping the upcoming Commonwealth Games-2010 in mind, that the land use of Sector 76,78,79,101, 102, 104 and 107 be changed for the development of the sports city. However, the area earmarked to develop sports city was increased to 346 hectares. Accordingly, Grand Thorton was appointed to formulate the scheme and to lay down conditions for the allotment of the land. In the next Board meetings held on 18.9.2008 (154 th Board Meeting), the amended Master-plan 2031 of NOIDA was considered, and for the first time, the details, as to what is expected in the sports city, were mentioned. Clause 5.9.3 of the Master plan laid down the details for the development of the sports city, which is extracted below:- “Development of a Sports City was proposed in the Central – Eastern part of Noida along the DSC Road. The proposed site is well linked by the proposed Master Plan roads connecting Expressway. National Highway-24, Greater Noida and other parts of the city. Noida Sports City envisions itself to be one of its kind in the Country, with a clear and defined focus on an integrated sports theme, its form providing a strong and such clearly identifiable image to Noida, where sports events catalyze other activities such as tourism, community meetings, exhibitions, conventions and festival. In order that the vision remains relevant, the sports and other related recreational and institutional facilities were proposed in the Sports City. Large size project of Sports-City could not be implemented. Therefore, the authority decided to have more than one projects of sports city of lesser sizes at different locations of the town. These Sports City projects would have about 50-100 hectares, or more land. The Sports City is basically a part of recreational land use and therefore its development is proposed in the recreational Green Area and a separate provision for permissible ground coverage and F.A.R. is proposed in the Building Regulations of Noida. These Sports City projects would have about 50-100 hectares, or more land. The Sports City is basically a part of recreational land use and therefore its development is proposed in the recreational Green Area and a separate provision for permissible ground coverage and F.A.R. is proposed in the Building Regulations of Noida. Any project of Sports-City may have the provision of following Sports and related facilities, residential, commercial and other facilities as per the specific requirement decided by the authority for a particular project or scheme:- i. A golf course, golf club house and driving range, integrated with the residential and commercial areas and a cricket stadium with covered grandstand, provisions of electronic scoreboards, television video screens, competition lighting, meeting rooms, media facilities etc. A multi-purpose playing field for athletics and football with practice nets, and competition lighting, synthetic turf laid hockey field, Indoor stadia for badminton and table tennis courts, weightlifting, boxing, gymnastics, karate etc., Indoor central court tennis centre, and Indoor swimming centre with pools- competition, warm-up and diving pool and other related facilities. Indoor and outdoor Stadium and playground may be added further as per the requirements. ii. Sports City may include a Sports Academy serving as a ‘centre of sports excellence’ with world class facilities and support services for a range of sports including Cricket, Tennis, Swimming, Athletics, & Golf etc. Practice areas could be incorporated within the sports grounds and facilities for competition and training. The academy may also include office accommodation, laboratories, lecture theatres and specialist facilities. The Sports City may have sports medicine/health facility centre to provide cutting edge sports science and sports medicine support. These should include-clinical services, sport sciences, nutrition, athlete and career education, applied research centre with the provisions of laboratories, officers and workshops. There shall be other facilities like Integrated Sports-hostels, dormitories and serviced apartments and other residential facilities within the walking distance to all venues Sports club, business and leisure facilities, meeting rooms and office accommodation shall be provided within the sports venues. iii. A network of roads shall be planned as a functional hierarchy to service the Sports City. Other facilities could include space for transport, entry and exit gates, passenger lounges, bridges and underpasses as required. Car parking facilities shall be suitably planned throughout the city. There shall be an IT Centre/Administration/Media block, and a major retail hub providing shopping facilities for the City. Other facilities could include space for transport, entry and exit gates, passenger lounges, bridges and underpasses as required. Car parking facilities shall be suitably planned throughout the city. There shall be an IT Centre/Administration/Media block, and a major retail hub providing shopping facilities for the City. Residential and Commercial facilities should also be developed within the Sports-City area. The Sports-city projects shall be developed as an Integrated Mini-Township with all modern and world class sports and other related facilities. Minimum 70% of the total area would be utilized for sports activities. Institutional and other facilities, open spaces and other recreational activities. Noida Authority will determine the land use pattern, permissible activities, planning norms and other regulations as required time to time for the development of the Sports-city projects.” 4. For the development of the sports city, the brochure was finalised on 04.11.2008 and the procedure for the change of land use was initiated. The scheme seems to have been launched but could not be finalised. Thereafter, in September 2010, the area of the sports city was changed from 311 hectares to 150 hectares, Grand Thorton was asked to give a fresh detailed project report and thereafter, the reserved price was fixed as Rs.12,500/-per sq. meter. From 2010-11 to 2015-16, four sports city projects were launched on a total area of 798 acres, in which three golf courses, one cricket stadium, and other sports facilities of international standard were planned. 5. Thereafter, the Master Plan 2031 of Noida Authority was modified. The modification was as follows:- “1. Noida Sports City envisions itself to be one of its kind in the Country, with a clear and defined focus on an integrated sports theme, its form providing a strong and clearly identifiable image to NOIDA; where sports events catalyze other activities such as tourism, community meetings, exhibitions, conventions and festivals. In order that the vision remains relevant, the sports and other related recreational and institutional facilities were proposed in the Sport City. 2. Large size project of Sports-city could not be implemented. Therefore, the Authority decided to have more than one projects of sports city of lesser sizes at different locations of the town. These Sport City projects would have about 50-100 hectares, or more land. 3. 2. Large size project of Sports-city could not be implemented. Therefore, the Authority decided to have more than one projects of sports city of lesser sizes at different locations of the town. These Sport City projects would have about 50-100 hectares, or more land. 3. The Sports City is basically a part of Recreational land use and therefore its development is proposed in the Recreational Green Area and a separate provision for permissible ground coverage and F.A.R. is proposed in the Building Regulations of Noida. Any project of Sports-city may have the provision of Sports and related facilities, residential, commercial and other facilities as per the specific requirement decided by the Authority for a particular project or scheme. Any project of sports city may have the following sports and related facilities:- 1. A golf course, golf club house and driving range, integrated with the residential and commercial areas and a cricket stadium with covered grandstand, provisions of electronic scoreboards, television video screens, competition lighting, meeting rooms, media facilities etc. A multi-purpose playing field for athletics and football with practice nets, and competition lighting, synthetic turf laid hockey field, Indoor stadium for badminton and table tennis courts, weightlifting, boxing, gymnastics, karate etc., Indoor central court tennis centre, and Indoor swimming centre with pools- competition, warm-up and diving pool and other related facilities. Indoor and outdoor Stadium and playground may be added further as per the requirements. 2. Sports City may include a Sports Academy serving as a ‘centre of sports excellence’ with world class facilities and support services for a range of sports including Cricket, Tennis, Swimming, Athletics, & Golf etc. Practice areas could be incorporated with the sports grounds and facilities for competition and training. The academy may also include office accommodation, laboratories, lecture theatres and specialist facilities. The Sport-city may have sports medicine/health facility centre to provide cutting edge sports science and sports medicine support. These should include clinical centre with the provisions of laboratories, offices and workshops. There shall be other facilities like Integrated Sports-hostels, dormitories and services apartments and other residential facilities within the walking distance to all venues. Sports club, business and leisure facilities, meeting rooms and office accommodation shall be provided within the sports venues. 3. A network of roads shall be planned as a functional hierarchy to service the Sports city. There shall be other facilities like Integrated Sports-hostels, dormitories and services apartments and other residential facilities within the walking distance to all venues. Sports club, business and leisure facilities, meeting rooms and office accommodation shall be provided within the sports venues. 3. A network of roads shall be planned as a functional hierarchy to service the Sports city. Other facilities could include space for transport, entry and exit gates, passenger lounges bridges and under passes as required. Car parking facilities shall be suitably planned throughout the city. There shall be an IT Centre/Administration/Media block, and a major retail hub providing shopping facilities for the City. Residential and Commercial facilities should also be developed within the Sport-City area. The Sport-city projects shall be developed as an Integrated Mini-Township with all modern and world class sports and other related facilities. Minimum 70% of the total area would be utilized for sports activities, Institutional and other facilities, open spaces and other recreational activities. Noida Authority will determine the land use pattern, permissible activities, planning norms and other regulations as required time to time for the development of the Sport-city project.” PRESENT SPORTS CITY SCHEME 02 IN SECTOR 150 6. NOIDA, sometimes in the year 2014, floated a scheme known as “Sports City” which was to be developed in Sector 150 of NOIDA. The scheme was launched on 07.6.2014 and was to close on 26.06.2014. As per the Scheme, a Sports City was to be developed on a land parcel of 12,00,000 square meters in Sector 150 Noida. The reserve price for the scheme was set at Rs.18,865/- per square metre. 7. The developer was supposed to create sports facilities over 70% of the entire land allotted to them, which was not marketable, and to set off this expense the developer was allowed to construct group housing on 29.5% and 0.5% commercial on the total land with FAR of 2.0 on the total land area. The scheme clearly stated that the population density in this Sports City would be 1650 per hectare. The open/green area of the recreational component (i.e. sports activities such as Golf course, stadium etc. and open spaces) was to be considered as other open green areas for the entire land. 8. The relevant part of the Brochure is as follows:- “Eligibility Criteria “8. The open/green area of the recreational component (i.e. sports activities such as Golf course, stadium etc. and open spaces) was to be considered as other open green areas for the entire land. 8. The relevant part of the Brochure is as follows:- “Eligibility Criteria “8. In case the tenderers have formed a consortium:- (a) Members of consortium will have to specify one Lead Member who alone shall be authorized to correspond with the NOIDA. Lead member should be the single largest shareholder having at least 30% share in the consortium. The shareholding of the lead member in the consortium shall remain at least 30% till the temporary occupancy/completion certificate of at least one phase of the project is obtained from the Noida. Each member of the consortium with equity stake of at least 05% will be considered as the ‘relevant member’. The Lead Member of the consortium must necessarily be a Firm/Company registered in India with the appropriate statutory Authority. (b) The lead member and the relevant members should jointly qualify the minimum requirement of net worth, solvency, turnover and experience. In case the tenderer is a consortium, then the qualifications of the holding company(ies) of the lead member and the relevant members or their subsidiary companies shall also be considered as the qualifications of the tenderer. (c) In case of Consortium, the members shall submit a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) conveying their intent to jointly apply for the scheme(s), and in case the plot is allotted to them, the MOA shall clearly define the role and responsibility of each member in the consortium, particularly with regard to arranging debt and equity for the project and its implementation. MOA should be submitted in original duty registered/notarized with appropriate authority. (d) The members shall submit a registered/notarized Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) conveying their intent to jointly apply for the scheme, and in case the plot is allotted to them, to form Special Purpose Company(ies), hereinafter called SPCs that will subsequently carry out all its responsibilities as the allottee. The registered MOA must specify the equity shareholding of each member of the Consortium in the proposed SPCs. The SPCs must mecessarily be Firm(s)/Company(ies) registered in India with the appropriate statutory Authority. The registered MOA must specify the equity shareholding of each member of the Consortium in the proposed SPCs. The SPCs must mecessarily be Firm(s)/Company(ies) registered in India with the appropriate statutory Authority. The allottee and in the case of consortium, the lead member and/or the relevant member and/or SPC(s) incorporated by them, put together, will have to construct on their own a minimum of 30% of the total permissible FAR on allotted area. In case of a consortium, the responsibility of construction of this 30% of the total permissible FAR shall be clearly specified in the MOA submitted by the consortium alongwith bid document. The allottee and the members of the consortium shall have the option to sub lease a maximum of 70% of land allotted to them as per the arrangements specified by them in the MOA. (e) Execution of more than one lease deeds can be made by sub dividing the plot in favour of the lead member and/or the relevant member(s) and/or Special Purpose Company(ies) (SPCs) formed by them, which should be firm(s) or incorporated company(ies) registered in India. However, the area of each of such sub-divided plot proposed for execution of lease deed, as described above, should not be less than 8,000 sq. mtrs. and the said sub-division should be in accordance with the planning norms of the NOIDA. 10. However, the lessee/Sub-lessee(s) will be allowed to transfer upto 100% of its shareholding, subject to the condition that the “Lead Member” (on the date of submission of the tender) shall continue to hold at least 30% of the shareholding in the SPC till the temporary occupancy/completion certificate at least one phase of the project is obtained from the NOIDA. In compliance with the Govt. Order No. 5007/11-5-2010500(50)/10 DATED 11 th October, 2010, issued by the Department of Tax & Registration, Government of Uttar Pradesh, the change in the name of shareholders does not amount to transfer of the property of the Company. The Change in Constitution Deed regarding change in the shareholders as a result of transfer of share in the Companies is not mandatory to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. In addition to this, no stamp duty of leviable on this CIC deed under Clause 23 of Schedule 1b of the Stamp Act, 1899. The Change in Constitution Deed regarding change in the shareholders as a result of transfer of share in the Companies is not mandatory to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. In addition to this, no stamp duty of leviable on this CIC deed under Clause 23 of Schedule 1b of the Stamp Act, 1899. No transfer charges shall be leviable on the transfer of shares in the Companies and no prior approval of the NOIDA shall be required for transferring the shares. MODE OF PAYMENT AND PAYMENT PLAN 1. The successful bidder shall be issued an allotment letter for the acquired area and reservation letter for the balance unacquired area. Allotment letter(s) of the area(s) contiguous to the already acquired and allotted land shall be issued as and when the balance land (in full or parts) is acquired and available for handing over possession to the successful bidder. 7. In case of default in depositing the installments or any payment, interest @ 14% compounded half yearly shall be leviable for defaulted period on the defaulted amount. POSSESSION Possession of allotted land will be handed over to the Lessee after execution and registration of lease deed. IMPLEMENTATION & COMPLETION OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 1. The Lessee shall be required to complete the construction of minimum 15% of the permissible area earmarked for sports, institutional and other facilities within a period of 3 years from the date of execution of Lease Deed and shall complete the project in phases within 5 years. However, the residential and commercial development/construction may be completed in phases within 7 years. Further more, the lessee has to develop residential and commercial component in the project in proportion to area earmarked for recreational uses. However, extension in exceptional circumstances can be granted by NOIDA, on payment of extension charges applicable as per prevailing policy at the time of granting such extension. Delays due to encroachment, force majure, legal issues like stay orders etc. shall be considered for extension. 2. The construction on the land shall have to be done as per the prescribed under these Terms and Conditions and the building regulations and directions of the NOIDA. COMPLETION 1. Delays due to encroachment, force majure, legal issues like stay orders etc. shall be considered for extension. 2. The construction on the land shall have to be done as per the prescribed under these Terms and Conditions and the building regulations and directions of the NOIDA. COMPLETION 1. The ‘Completion Certificate’ will be issued by the NOIDA on the completion of the project or part thereof in phases and on the submission of the necessary documents required for certifying the completion of the project or part thereof. INDEMNITY The lessee shall be wholly and solely responsible for the implementation of the Project and also ensuring the quality of development/constructions, subsequent operations and maintenance of the facilities and services, till such time as the alternate agency for such work is identified and legally appointed by the lessee after prior written approval of NOIDA. The lessee shall execute an Indemnity bond Indemnifying the NOIDA against all disputes arising out of: a) The non-completion of the project. b) The quality of development, construction, operations and maintenance. c) Any legal dispute arising out of allotment, lease and/or sub-lease to the final purchaser(s). GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS * Composite Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2.0(subject to approval of state government) on the total gross area of the allotted land will be permissible, which is fungible/transferable in different land use components as prescribed. * The obligations of the developer with respect to the development of sports, institutional and other facilities are prescribed in Annexure 2 of this document. Subject to provision of Master Plan and regulation of NOIDA: The lessee shall be entitled to sub-lease the sports, other facilities and institutional activity, with prior approval of NOIDA/Lessor. * Commercial and residential area can be sub-leased without any approvals on tripartite agreement basis. * The transfer of whole plot and sub-lease of built up space shall be governed by the transfer policy prevailing at the time of such transfer or sub-lease of built up space. * Without obtaining the completion certificate the lessee shall have the right to sub-divide the allotted plot into suitable smaller plot as per the planning norms of the NOIDA only for the area available for residential and commercial use and to transfer the same to the interested parties, if any, with the prior approval of the NOIDA on payment of transfer charges at the rate prevailing on the date of transfer. However, the area of each of such sub-divided plot should not be less than 8,000 sq. mtrs. *After the written approval of the Lessor/NOIDA Authority, the lessee can implement/develop the project through its multiple subsidiary companies in which the allottee/lessee company shall have minimum 90% equity share holdings (such subsidiaries are exempted from stamp duty for transaction between parent company and subsidiary company under the provisions of Indian Stamp Act as per the State Government notification). * For the first transfer of land/built-up area through sub-lease no additional charges or transfer charges shall be payable by lessee to NOIDA or any Authority. * Sub lease of land/built-up area shall be allowed on the basis of approved layout and building plans by NOIDA. OTHER CLAUSES 1. The Authority/Lessor reserves the right to make such additions/alterations or modifications in the terms and conditions of allotment/lease deed/sub lease deed from time to time, as may be considered just and expedient. 2. In case of any clarification or interpretation regarding these terms and conditions, the decision of the NOIDA shall be final and binding. 7. The NOIDA will monitor the implementation of the project. Applicants who do not have a firm commitment to implement the project within the time limits prescribed are advised not to avail the allotment. 11. All arrears due to the Lessor/Lessee(s) would be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. 12. The NOIDA in larger public interest may take back the possession of the land/building by paying a reasonable(s) compensation. The decision in this regard shall be final and binding on the lessee/sub-lessee(s). (Emphasis supplied) 9. The respondent no.2-NOIDA invited applications for allotment of Sports City on Plot No.SC-02 in Sector-150, NOIDA. As per the brochure, a Consortium was also allowed to participate. In terms of the Brochure a Consortium of M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt Ltd was constituted as a lead member along with following six companies who applied for allotment of this plot on 23.06.2014:- (i) M/s Three C Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (ii) M/s Three C Infra Square Pvt. Ltd. (iii) M/s Three C Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (iv) M/s Elate Realtor Pvt. Ltd. (v) M/s Three C Crest Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & (vi) M/s Allure Developers Pvt. Ltd. 10. The lead member M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt Ltd. was a subsidiary company of M/s Three C Universal Developers Pvt. Ltd. The application was made on the qualification of M/s Three C Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., which was also one of its group company. Surprisingly, Sports City 01/78-79 was also allotted to the same group of companies on the basis of the qualification of the same company i.e. M/s Three C Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. 11. The tenders were evaluated and after finding the bid of the Consortium most compliant (at a rate of Rs 19,400/- per sqm), the project was allotted to the Consortium and allotment letter was issued on various dates, as and when the possession of the land could be handed over to the allotee. 12. In the name of Lead Member of the Consortium namely, M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner company) for Plot No.SC-02, Sector-150, NOIDA. The total premium for the plot in the year 2014 was Rs.2,328,00,00,000/- (Rupees 2,328 crores). The allotment-cum- reservation letter was issued to the lead member on 10.9.2014, asking the allottee to pay 20% of the premium, and the balance 80 % was to be paid in 16 half yearly instalments (starting from 10.3.2015 and ending on 10.9.2022). 13. After payment of the upfront 20% of the premium, a formal letter was issued on 07.10.2014 and thereafter, Noida Authority executed various lease deeds and allotted a total area of 11,98,370.92 sq meters of land. The details of which are as follows:- “The details of lease deeds executed is as follows:- S.No. Party Name and Address Area (Sqm) Date of Execution of Lease Deed 1. M/s Lotus Greens Constructions Pvt. Ltd.-SC- 01/A, Sector-150, Noida 6,40,000.00 19.12.2014 2. M/s Allure Developers Pvt. Ltd.- SC-02/C,Sector-150, Noida 60,000.00 19.12.2014 3. M/s Elate Realtors Pvt. Ltd.-SC-02/B, Sector- 150, Noida 1,00,000.00 19.12.2014 4. M/s Crest Promoters Private Limited, SC-02/F, Sector-150, Noida 58,064.71 07.04.2015 5. M/s Crest Promoters Private Limited, SC-02/G, Sector-150, Noida 60,000.54 07.04.2015 6. M/s Three C Buildcon Private Limited, SC-02/ E, Sector-150, Noida 32,519.22 07.04.2015 7. M/s Three C Infra Square Private Limited, SC 02/D, Sector-150, Noida 40186.45 07.04.2015 8. M/s Lotus Greens Constructions Pvt. Ltd. SC- 01/A, Sector-150, Noida 7,600.00 11.05.2015 9. M/s Lotus Greens Constructions Pvt. Ltd.-SC- 01/H and I, Sector-150, Noida 72,000.00 20.11.2015 10. M/s Lotus Greens Constructions Pvt. Ltd.-SC- 01/J and J, Sector-150, Noida 72,000.00 20.11.2015 11. M/s Three C Infra Square Private Limited, SC 02/D, Sector-150, Noida 40186.45 07.04.2015 8. M/s Lotus Greens Constructions Pvt. Ltd. SC- 01/A, Sector-150, Noida 7,600.00 11.05.2015 9. M/s Lotus Greens Constructions Pvt. Ltd.-SC- 01/H and I, Sector-150, Noida 72,000.00 20.11.2015 10. M/s Lotus Greens Constructions Pvt. Ltd.-SC- 01/J and J, Sector-150, Noida 72,000.00 20.11.2015 11. Area not registered yet 56,000.00 Not Applicable Total Area 11,98,370.92 14. On 01.3.2016, NOIDA allotted 1,53,790 sqm of extra land to the petitioners. 15. It is claimed by the petitioners that the possession of contiguous land has not been given to them till date. Khasra Nos. 86, 471, 94, 95, 109, 110, 171, 172, 181, 182, 187, 192, 200, 201, 208, 209, 211, 212, 218, 219, 234, 233 in Village Momnathal fall under the Chak Marg, Drain, Govt. Land and Main Drain, which were still not acquired by Noida Authority spreading in between the 10,07,000.00 sqm land parcel. 16. On 6.9.2017 Noida issued a letter to the allottee for payment of additional compensation for the farmers whose land has been acquired. 17. Inspite of rescheduling of the time frame the allottee failed to meet the first Mile stone. So a notice was issued by the Noida on 4.2.2020 but nothing happened. 18. The petitioner company claims that there were some problem in actual physical possession of the entire land, hence, the petitioner applied for benefit of zero period for an area 8,07,600 sqm from the date of execution of lease deed till 30.06.2015. The petitioner again moved an application dated 18.12.2015/ 28.12.2015 seeking benefit of zero period for an area 10,07,600 sqm. Noida Authority on 12.09.2016 granted benefit of zero period for an area measuring 9,94,218 sqm. In this letter, it was mentioned that benefit of zero period will not be extended further. The petitioner company availed the benefit of this letter dated 12.09.2016 and did not challenge the same. 19. The lead member of the Consortium filed a consolidated map for the development of the sports city project, which was approved. 20. On the request of the allottees (members of the consortium) their allotted land was subdivided into various companies, which they claimed, were 100% subsidiary of the allottee companies. 21. Subsequently, the allottee subsidiary Companies further made request to the Noida authority to further subdivide their plots in the name of companies, which were 100% subsidiaries of the allottee companies. 20. On the request of the allottees (members of the consortium) their allotted land was subdivided into various companies, which they claimed, were 100% subsidiary of the allottee companies. 21. Subsequently, the allottee subsidiary Companies further made request to the Noida authority to further subdivide their plots in the name of companies, which were 100% subsidiaries of the allottee companies. By this sub-division, the original seven companies by now had become 24 companies. 22. The possession of 8,07,600 sqm. of land was handed over on 26.12.2014. Though the Sports City Scheme-02 in Sector 150 was on an area of 12,00,000 sqm, but the Noida authority allotted further 1,13,375 sqm of land to the allottee. After the allotment of this additional land, the allottee filed a revised master layout for approval, which was sanctioned by the Noida authority on 17.1.2017 extending the timeline period of various milestones for completion of the project. The extended time line was as follows:- Mile stone Start date Completion date 15% development of recreational facilities in three years 1.10.2016 30.09.2019 100% development of recreational facilities in five years 1.10.2016 30.09.2021. 100% development of residential & Commercial in seven years 1.10.2016 30.09.2023. 23. An integrated map for development of Sports City-02 in Sector 150 was approved on 17.01.2017 (the validity of the plan was five years) wherein each Member of Consortium took upon themselves the obligation of completing their part of residential/commercial and the sports facility in the Sports City. The approved map showing obligations of each company were as follows:- PLOT NO.SC-02, SECTOR-150, NOIDA (U.P.) S. No. Company PLOT NO. Plot area given to each company FAR To be developed by each company PROPOSED GROUND COVERAGE (SQM.) In Sqm In Sqm OPEN/ GREEN (IN SQ.M.) (Perc) % l ( Residentia IN SQM) (A) (Perc) % Commer cial (IN SQM) (B) ) % (Perc Sports (IN SQM) (C) ) % (Perc Total (In Sqm) (E=A+B+ C) (Perc) % 1. M/s Lotus Greens Constructions Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A, SEC-150 134441.00 166857.48 94108.70 70.00 25642.30 19.07 190.00 0.14 14500.00 10.79 40332.30 30.00 2. M/s Land Kart Builders Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A1, SEC-150 83970.00 195796.00 58779.00 70.00 24255.00 28.89 436.00 0.52 500.00 0.60 25191.00 30.00 3. M/s Build Wall Builders Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A2, SEC-150 653331.00 131643.92 45731.70 70.00 19157.30 29.32 180.00 0.28 262.00 0.40 19599.30 30..00 4. M/s Land Kart Builders Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A1, SEC-150 83970.00 195796.00 58779.00 70.00 24255.00 28.89 436.00 0.52 500.00 0.60 25191.00 30.00 3. M/s Build Wall Builders Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A2, SEC-150 653331.00 131643.92 45731.70 70.00 19157.30 29.32 180.00 0.28 262.00 0.40 19599.30 30..00 4. M/s Wiztown Planners Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A3, SEC-150 27185.00 31326.09 18700.05 68.79 0.00 0.00 2212.01 8.14 6272.94 23.08 8484.95 31.21 5. M/s Gray Wall Developers Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A4, SEC-150 46846.00 115406.36 32792.20 70.00 0.00 0.00 185.73 0.40 13868.08 29.60 14053.80 30.00 6. M/s Gray Brick Developers Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A5, SEC-150 8080.00 36428.53 3232.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4848.00 60.00 4848.00 60.00 7. M/s Brick Town Developers Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A6, SEC-150 37915.00 105853.08 26540.50 70.00 11244.50 29.66 130.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 11374.50 30.00 8. M/s Strongbiz Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A7, SEC-150 50790.00 99818.81 35553.00 70.00 15057.00 29.65 180.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 15237.00 30.00 9. M/s Wishland Buildzone Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A8, SEC-150 50560.00 110323.36 35392.00 70.00 14944.00 29.56 224.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 151.68.00 30.00 10. M/s Wondrous Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A9, SEC-150 80857.00 138020.50 56599.90 70.00 23695.10 29.30 100.00 0.12 462.00 0.57 24257.10 30.00 11. M/s Escarpment Buildcraft Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A10, SEC-150 108135.00 162309.32 78118.50 72.24 29826.50 27.58 190.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 30016.50 27.76 12. M/s Elate Realtors Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/B, SEC-150 100000.00 200000.00 70000.00 70.00 29500.00 29.50 500.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 30000.00 30.00 13. M/s Allure Developers Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/C, SEC-150 60000.00 120000.00 42000.00 70.00 17400.00 29.00 300.00 0.50 300.00 0.00 18000.00 30.00 14. M/s Samridhi Infra Square Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/D, SEC-150 40186.45 80372.90 28130.52 70.00 11855.00 29.50 200.93 0.50 0.00 0.00 12055.94 30.00 15. M/s Samridhi Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/E, SEC-150 32519.22 65038.44 22763.45 70.00 9593.17 29.50 162.60 0.50 0.00 0.00 9755.77 30.00 16. M/s Crest Promoters Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/F, SEC-150 58064.71 116129.42 40645.30 70.00 17129.09 29.50 290.32 0.50 0.00 0.00 17419.41 30.00 17. M/s Crest Promoters Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/G, SEC-150 60000.54 120001.08 42000.38 70.00 17700.16 29.50 300.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 18000.16 30.00 18. M/s Brick Rise Developers Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/HI, SEC-150 72000.00 144000.00 50400.00 70.00 21240.00 29.50 360.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 21600.00 30.00 19. M/s Fest Homes Developers Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/JK, SEC-150 72000.00 195219.39 50400.00 70.00 21420.00 29.75 180.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 21600.00 30.00 20. M/s Three C Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/L, SEC-150 42658.00 85316.00 29860.60 70.00 12584.11 29.50 213.29 0.50 0.00 0.00 12797.40 30.00 21. M/s Fest Homes Developers Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/JK, SEC-150 72000.00 195219.39 50400.00 70.00 21420.00 29.75 180.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 21600.00 30.00 20. M/s Three C Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/L, SEC-150 42658.00 85316.00 29860.60 70.00 12584.11 29.50 213.29 0.50 0.00 0.00 12797.40 30.00 21. M/s Allure Developers Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/C1, SEC-150 22769.00 45538.00 15938.30 70.00 6716.86 29.50 113.85 0.50 0.00 0.00 6830.70 30.00 22. M/s Reverent Developers Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/M, SEC-150 37231.00 117679.14 26391.15 70.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10839.85 29.12 10839.85 29.12 23. M/s Vella Stone Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. SEC-150 SC-02/N, 20863.00 41726.00 14604.10 70.00 6258.90 30.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6258.90 30.00 24. M/s Vicetech Developers Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/P, SEC-150 17344.00 34688.00 12140.80 70.00 5203.20 30.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5203.20 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1329745.92 2659491.84 930822.14 70.00 340422.18 25.60 6648.73 0.50 51852.87 3.90 398923.78 30.00 PERMISSIBLE DEVELOPMENT 1329745.92 2659491.84 930822.14 70.00 392275.05 29.50 6648.73 0.50 398923.78 30.00 24. The petitioner claimed that NOIDA Authority had not executed lease deed in respect of sub-divided plots and for this reason, they were unable to commence construction and development work on their respective plots. 25. The petitioner again sought benefit of extension of zero period on the ground of encroachment by farmers and inability of NOIDA Authority to provide encumbrance free land. This request was declined by NOIDA Authority on 25.02.2020. 26. Lead Member of the Consortium (petitioner company) as well as the Relevant Members did not develop the Sports City as well as residential apartments within time as prescribed in the scheme. Thereafter, the petitioner company (Lead Member of the Consortium) moved an application on 05.12.2022 for approval of the revised Master Plan. However, in this revised plan, area of Golf Course was unilaterally reduced. CAG REPORT 27. It transpires that there was some bungling/scam in formulating the scheme of the Sports City and its allotment and development. An audit was carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, [CAG], who tabled the report in September, 2020, which shows that there was a huge scam, which costed Noida Authority and the State Government a loss of almost 9,000/- crore. The relevant portion of report submitted by CAG is quoted hereinbelow:- 28. An audit was carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, [CAG], who tabled the report in September, 2020, which shows that there was a huge scam, which costed Noida Authority and the State Government a loss of almost 9,000/- crore. The relevant portion of report submitted by CAG is quoted hereinbelow:- 28. The report given by the CAG was shocking and revealed the scam, it mentions as to how the Noida Authority and the State Government has suffered a loss amounting to Rs.9,000/- crore, as Noida Authority has done wrong pricing of the land marked for Sports City. As per the brochure only residential and commercial plots could have been divided but the Noida Authority sub-divided the entire plots, which were earmarked for Sports City as well. Bids of the allottee were not screened and the turnover/qualification of the candidates were also not considered before allotting the plot. The Lead Member having the highest share was ousted from the project completely and thereafter, the allotment was done to various other companies, which individually could not have qualified in the financial bid evaluation. By adopting such dubious methodology, the Noida Authority had allotted the plots to those, who were not even entitled to apply individually. The Noida Authority did not even bother to collect the instalment dues and no effort was ever made by them giving an undue and illegal advantage to the allottees. The finance department has issued a fresh payment plan considering each allottee company as a fresh allottee. The transfer charges for second and third transfer were not even collected. In some cases, occupancy certificate has been issued though sports facilities were not developed. The lease rent was also not recovered. 29. After the report of CAG, the matter was eventually referred to the Public Accounts Committee 3 , where the proceedings are still going on. BOARD MEETING OF NOIDA AUTHORITY 30. As a knee jerk reaction to the CAG Audit, NOIDA had its Board st meeting on 18.01.2021 (201 Board Meeting) in which it was resolved that in order to complete the sports facilities in the Sports City, a Committee should be formed, which would look into the situation and put3 PAC forth a report in the next Board meeting, and stayed any further steps to be taken in the Sports City including revalidation of the maps. 31. 31. The next Board’s meeting was held on 25.06.2021, wherein it was resolved as under:- 32. After the CAG report, NOIDA froze all the activities in the Sports City and referred the matter to the State Government for direction and guidance as to what has to be done. Looking into the gravity of the situation a Public Accounts Committee 4 comprising of members of Legislative Assembly was constituted to look into the issue. PRAYERS MADE IN THE LEADING WRIT PETITION NO.15604 OF 2021 33. Since then, nothing had happened, so the Lead Member on behalf of the Consortium (petitioner company) has filed the instant writ petition i.e .Writ C No.15604 of 2021 (M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) seeking following reliefs:- “I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDMUS directing the respondents to extend the benefit of zero period to the Petitioner not only up to the admitted date of 17.08.2017 but till the actual peaceful vacant 4 PAC physical possession of the land in question being Plot no. Sport City SC-02 in Sector 150, NOIDA, is handed over to the Petitioner. II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature MANDMUS directing the respondents not to demand/realize the installment and interest on the lease premium until the actual peaceful vacant physical possession of the land in question being Plot no. Sport City -2 in Sector 150, NOIDA, is handed over to the Petitioner. III. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature MANDMUS directing the respondents not to demand/charge lease rent upto the admitted date of 17.08.2017 but till the actual peaceful vacant physical possession of the land in question being Plot no. Sport City -2 in Sector 150, NOIDA, is handed over to the Petitioner. IV. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature MANDMUS directing the respondents to grant extension of construction timeline ought to be calculated from the date when the actual peaceful vacant physical possession of the land in question being Plot no. Sport City -2 in Sector 150, NOIDA, is handed over to the Petitioner. V. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature MANDMUS directing the respondents to provide to the Petitioner, a restructuring of the repayment schedule so that the amount is paid to Noida Authority in terms of order dt. Sport City -2 in Sector 150, NOIDA, is handed over to the Petitioner. V. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature MANDMUS directing the respondents to provide to the Petitioner, a restructuring of the repayment schedule so that the amount is paid to Noida Authority in terms of order dt. 10.06.2020 and 10.07.2020 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 940/2017 in the Amrapali Batch Matters as against the allotment of the land in question to the Petitioner being Plot no. Sports City-2 in Sector-150, NOIDA. VI. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the Demand/intimation letter dt. 15.03.2021 passed by Noida Authority being incorrect and further preventing the Respondent Authorities from taking any coercive action against the Petitioner with respect to the legal right of the Petitioner over the land in question being Plot no. Sport City-SC-02 in Sector 150, NOIDA. VII. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature MANDAMUS, directing the respondents to pay damages and compensation to the additional premium as extra compensation awarded to the Farmers have been levied upon the Petitioner and included in the total cost of the allotment of the land in question to the Petitioner. VIII. To issue any other order of direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IX. To award the cost of the petition to this Petitioner. X. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature MANDAMUS directing the respondents to provide to the Petitioner, a restructuring of the repayment schedule as against the allotment of the land in question to the Petitioner being Plot no. Sport City-2 in Sector 150, NOIDA. XI. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature MANDAMUS, directing the Respondent No.2 to execute lease deeds of the balance land admeasuring 1,23,854 sq meter allotted to the various allottees forming part of the Sports City Plot in question. XII. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the decision of Board of the Respondent No. 2 taken in 201 st Board Meeting dated 18-01-2021 whereby all the approvals, sanctions, permissions and other decisions in respect of Sports City Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Gautam Buddh Nagar, U.P have been put on hold/freeze; XIII. XII. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the decision of Board of the Respondent No. 2 taken in 201 st Board Meeting dated 18-01-2021 whereby all the approvals, sanctions, permissions and other decisions in respect of Sports City Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Gautam Buddh Nagar, U.P have been put on hold/freeze; XIII. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature MANDAMUS, directing the Respondent No.2 to approve the building plans, revision in building plans, revalidation of building plans and such other approvals/sanctions/clarifications related to permission to mortgage, change in constitution of the Allottees, transfer approvals etc. as may be required to execute the Sports City Project efficiently. XIV. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the demand letter dated 06-09-2017 along with letter dated 31-07- 2020 issued by Respondent no.2 demanding INR 392.88/- (Rupees Three Hundred Crores and Eighty Eight Crores only) by way of Pratikar towards payment of additional farmers compensation in respect of Subject Plot being SC-02-, Sports City, Sector 150, Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar, U.P; XV. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the Respondent no. 2 to not take any coercive steps /actions pursuant to the impugned demand notice dated 06-09-2017 issued by Respondent no.2. XVI. To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the Respondent no. 2 to grant benefit of zero-period in respect of plot no. 80-02/A forming part of Sports City Plot in question for the period commencing from date of allotment of the said plot till the date on which; (i) the encroachment from the said plot no, SC-02/A is removed and vacant physical and peaceful possession of the encroachment portion is handed over by Respondent no.2 to the petitioner and (ii) lease deed in respect of the Unleased Portion of the said plot SC-02/A is executed by Respondent no.2 in Favour of the Petitioner. XVII. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the Respondent no. 2 to grant benefit of zero-period to M/s Build Wall Builders Private Limited in respect of plot no. SC-02/A2 for the period commencing from 01-10-2016 till the date on which the encroachment from the said plot no. XVII. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the Respondent no. 2 to grant benefit of zero-period to M/s Build Wall Builders Private Limited in respect of plot no. SC-02/A2 for the period commencing from 01-10-2016 till the date on which the encroachment from the said plot no. SC-02/A2 is removed and vacant physical and peaceful possession of the encroachment portion is handed over by Respondent no.2. XVIII. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent. no. 2 to grant benefit of zero-period to Gray Wall Brick Town, Villa Stone and Vicetech the benefit of zero period in respect of plots nos, namely SC-02/A4, SC-02/A6, SC-02/N and SC-02/P forming part of Sports City Plot in question for the period commencing from 01-10-2016 till the date on which the lease deed in respect of plot no. SC-02/P is executed by respondent no. 2 in favour of Vicetech. XIX. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the Respondent no. 2 to grant benefit of zero-period to M/s Escarpment Buildcraft Private Limited in respect of plot no. SC-02/A10, forming part of Sports City Plot in question for the period commencing from 01-10-2016 till the date on which the lease deed in respect of the Unleased Portion of Plot No. SC- 02A/A10 is executed by Respondent no. 2. XX. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the Respondent no. 2 to grant benefit of zero-period to Elate Realtors Private Limited in respect of plot no. SC-02/B for the period commencing from 01-10- 2016 till the date on which the encroachment from the said plot no. SC-02/B is removed and vacant physical and peaceful possession of the encroachment portion is handed over by Respondent no.2. PRAYERS MADE IN THE CONNECTED WRIT PETITIONS (1) In Writ-C 30347 of 2023 (M/s Reverent Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs.State of U.P. and others:- “(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to execute and register lease deed in respect of the Subject Plot being SC-02/M, admeasuring 37,231 sq. PRAYERS MADE IN THE CONNECTED WRIT PETITIONS (1) In Writ-C 30347 of 2023 (M/s Reverent Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs.State of U.P. and others:- “(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to execute and register lease deed in respect of the Subject Plot being SC-02/M, admeasuring 37,231 sq. meters forming part of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot No. SC-02, Sector-150, Noida, Gautam Budha Nagar, U.P. and more particularly shown and Approved Layout Plan of Sports City Plot annexed demarcated in Lotus Greens hereto as Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition. (ii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus Respondent No. 1 to directing the take appropriate decision on the matter pertaining to the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot by removing the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City arising out of the impugned decision of Respondent No.3 in its 2015t Board Meeting dated 18-01-2021. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing/setting aside decision of the Respondent No. 3 to stop/put on hold sanction of building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City Plot Namely Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P, taken in the 201st Board Meeting of Respondent No. 3 on 18-01-2021 (Annexure No. 3 to this writ Petition). (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to allow construction and development of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot in accordance with Approved Layout Plan dated 17-01-2017 (Annexure No. 2 to this Writ Petition) OR in the alternative a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 3 to approve sanction the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent No.4 on 05-12-2022 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) and also to provide such other approvals/ sanctions/ permissions from time to time as may be required to enable the Petitioner to commence construction in the Subject Plot in accordance and the Scheme Brochure for the construction and development of the sports city project in the Subject Plot. (v) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to (i) grant zero period with regard to the payment of lease premium and annual lease rent in respect of the Subject Plot (ii) grant extension of time for completion of project in the Subject Plot without payment of any charges, for the period commencing from 01-03-2016 up to the date on which Respondent No. 3 executes lease deed in respect of the Subject Plot in favour of the Petitioner and further for the period commencing from 18-01-2021 i.e. date on which the Board of the Respondent No. 3 has suspended the approval/ sanction/revision of building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot till the date on which the Respondent No. 3 removes the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City and permits development of sports city project in accordance with Approved Lay Out Plan dated 17-01-2017 OR approves the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent No.4, whichever is later. (vi) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not issue any demand note or any default notices till the time Respondent No. 3 executes lease deed in respect of the Subject Plot in favour of the Petitioner and further up to the date on which ban sanction of building plans in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot is lifted OR Revised Lay Out Plan is approved, whichever is later. (vii) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.” (2) In Writ-C No. 33174 of 2023 (M/s Wish Land Buildzone Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others):- “(i) Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting aside Impugned Demand Notice dated 28-03- 2023 (Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition) purporting to be for payment of alleged outstanding dues towards installments of lease premium amounting to Rs. 142,26,78,663/- and towards annual lease rent amounting to Rs. 21,08,14,796/- in aggregate Rs. 163,34,93,7459/- in respect of plot no. SC-02/A-8, admeasuring 50,560 sq. 142,26,78,663/- and towards annual lease rent amounting to Rs. 21,08,14,796/- in aggregate Rs. 163,34,93,7459/- in respect of plot no. SC-02/A-8, admeasuring 50,560 sq. meters located in sports city Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not take any coercive steps/actions pursuant to Demand Notice dated 28-03-2023; (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to take appropriate decision on the matter pertaining to the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot by removing the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City arising out of the impugned decision of Respondent No.3 in its 201st Board Meeting dated 18-01-2021. (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing/setting aside decision of the Respondent No. 3 to stop/put on hold sanction of building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City Plot Namely Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P, taken in the 201st Board Meeting of Respondent No. 3 on 18-01-2021 (Annexure No. 3 to this writ petition). (v) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 to allow construction and development of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot in accordance with Approved Layout Plan dated 17-01-2017 (Annexure No. 5 to this Writ Petition) OR in the alternative a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 3 to approve sanction the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent no.5 on 05-12-2022 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) and also to provide such other approvals/ sanctions/ permissions from time to time as may be required to enable the Petitioner to commence construction in the Subject Plot in accordance with Sub- Lease Deed and the Scheme Brochure for the construction and development of the sports city project in the Subject Plot. (vi) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to (i) grant zero period with regard to the payment of lease premium and annual lease rent in respect of the Subject Plot (ii) grant extension of time without payment of any extra charges for completion of project in the Subject Plot, for the period commencing from 25-03-2020 up to 31-12-2020 on account of outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic and thereafter for the period commencing from 18-01-2021 i.e. date on which the Board of the Respondent No. suspended the 3 has approval/sanction/revision of building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot till the date on which the Respondent No. 3 removes the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City and permits development of sports city project in accordance with Approved Lay Out Plan dated 17-01-2017 OR approves the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent no.5, whichever is later; (vii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not issue any demand note or any further or subsequent default notices up to the date on which ban sanction of building plans in respect of the Subject Sports City Plot is lifted or Revised Lay Out Plan is approved is, whichever is later; (viii) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.” (3) In Writ-C No. 33182 of 2023 (M/S Escarpment Buildcraft Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others):- “(i). Issue, a writ, order and/or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/ setting aside aside Impugned Demand Notice dated 27-03- 2023 (Annexure No.-2 to this writ petition) purporting to be for payment of alleged outstanding dues towards installments of lease premium amounting to Rs. 269,78,46,360/- and towards annual lease rent amounting to 39,33,82,733/- in aggregate Rs. 309,12,29,093/- in respect of Subject Plot being plot SC-02/A10, located in sports city Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P; (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not take any coercive steps/actions pursuant to the Impugned Demand Notice dated 27-03-2023. 309,12,29,093/- in respect of Subject Plot being plot SC-02/A10, located in sports city Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P; (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not take any coercive steps/actions pursuant to the Impugned Demand Notice dated 27-03-2023. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to clear the encroachment of Encroached Portion (as per Super- imposed Shazra Map i.e. Annexure -4 to this writ petition) from the Subject Plot and handover vacant, physical and peaceful possession thereof to the Petitioner; (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to execute and register lease deed in respect of the Unleased Portion admeasuring 13842 sq. meters forming part of the Subject Plot; (v). meters forming part of the Subject Plot; (v). Issue a writ, order or nature of Mandamus Respondent No. 1 to direction in the directing the take appropriate decision on the matter pertaining to the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot by removing the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City arising out of the impugned decision of Respondent No.3 in its 201st Board Meeting dated 18-01-2021; (vi) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing/ setting aside decision of the Respondent No. 3 to stop/put on hold sanction of building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City Plot Namely Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P, taken in the 201st Board Meeting of Respondent No. 3 on 18-01-2021 (Annexure No. 3 to this writ Petition); (vii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to allow construction and development of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot in accordance with Approved Layout Plan dated 17-01-2017 (Annexure No. 5 to this Writ Petition) OR in the alternative a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 3 to approve sanction the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent no.5 on 05-12- 2022 (Annexure No. P-6 to the writ petition) and also to provide such other approvals/ sanctions/ permissions from time to time as may be required to enable the Petitioner to commence construction in the Subject Plot in accordance with Lease Deed and the Scheme Brochure for the construction and development of the sports city project in the Subject Plot; (viii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to (i) grant zero period with regard to the payment of lease premium and annual lease rent in respect of the Subject Plot (ii) grant extension of time for completion of project in the Subject Plot, for the period commencing from 25-03-2020 up to 31-12-2020 on account of outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic and thereafter for the period commencing from 18-01-2021 i.e. date on which the Board of the Respondent No. 3 has suspended the approval/sanction/revision of building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot till the date on which the Respondent No. 3 removes the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City and permits development of sports city project in accordance with Approved Lay Out Plan dated 17-01-2017 OR approves the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent no.5, whichever is later; (ix) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to (i) grant zero period with regard to the payment of lease premium, annual lease rent in respect of the Subject Plot and (ii) grant extension of time for completion of project in the Subject Plot, for the period commencing from 01-10-2016 up to the date on which Respondent No.3 (i) removes encroachment from Encroached Portion of the Subject Plot; and (ii) executes lease deed in respect of the Unleased portion forming part of Subject Plot AND (iii) removes the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot and permits development of sports city project in accordance with Approved Lay Out Plan dated 17-01-2017 OR approves the Revised Lay Out Plan dated 05-12-2022, whichever is later; (x). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not issue any demand note or any further or subsequent default notices till the time the Subject Plot remains encroached OR up to the date on which ban sanction of building plans in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot is lifted OR Revised Lay Out Plan is approved, whichever is later; (xi) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.” (4) In Writ -C No. 33191 of 2023 ( M/s Build Wall Builders Private Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others):- “(i). Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting aside aside Impugned Demand Notice dated 28-03- 2023 (Annexure No.-2 to this writ petition) purporting to be for payment of alleged outstanding dues towards installments of premium amounting lease to Rs. 186,91,83,445/- and towards annual lease rent amounting to 28,29,17,744/- in aggregate Rs.215,21,01,189/- in respect of Subject Plot being plot SC-02/A-2, admeasuring 65,331.00 sq. meters located in sports city Plot No. SC-02, Sector150, Noida Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. (ii) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not take any coercive steps/actions pursuant to the Impugned Demand Notice dated 28-03-2023. (iii) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to clear the encroachment of Encroached Portion (as per Super- imposed Shazra Map i.e. Annexure no.4 to this writ petition) from the Subject Plot and handover vacant, physical and peaceful possession thereof to the Petitioner. (iv) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to take appropriate decision on the matter pertaining to the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot by removing the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City arising out of the impugned decision of Respondent No.3 in its 2015t Board Meeting dated 18-01-2021. (v). (v). Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing/setting aside the decision of the Respondent No. 3 to stop/put on hold sanction of building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City Plot Namely Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P, taken in the 201st Board Meeting of Respondent No. 3 on 18-01-2021 (Annexure No.3 to this writ Petition). (vi) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to allow construction and development of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot in accordance with Approved Layout Plan dated 17-01-2017 (Annexure No.5 to this Writ Petition) OR in the alternative a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 3 to approve sanction the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent no.5 on 05-12-2022 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) and also to provide such other approvals/ sanctions/ permissions from time to time as may be required to enable the Petitioner to commence construction in the Subject Plot in accordance with Lease Deed and the Scheme Brochure for the construction and development of the sports city project in the Subject Plot. (vii) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to (i) grant zero period with regard to the payment of lease premium and annual lease rent in respect of the Subject Plot (ii) grant extension of time for completion of project in the Subject Plot, for the period commencing from 25- 03-2020 up to 31-12-2020 on account of outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic and thereafter for the period commencing from 18-01-2021 i.e. date on which the Board of the Respondent No.3 has suspended the approval/sanction/revision of building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot till the date on which the Respondent No. 3 removes the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City and permits development of sports city project in accordance with Approved Lay Out Plan dated 17-01-2017 OR approves the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent no.5, whichever is later. (viii) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to (i) grant zero period with regard to the payment of lease premium, annual lease rent in respect of the Subject Plot and (ii) grant extension of time for completion of project in the Subject Plot, for the period commencing from 01-10-2016 up to the date on which Respondent No.3 (i) removes encroachment from Encroached Portion of the Subject Plot; and (ii) removes the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot and permits development of sports city project in accordance with Approved Lay Out Plan dated 17-01- 2017 OR approves the Revised Lay Out Plan dated 05-12-2022, whichever is later. (ix) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not issue any demand note or any further or subsequent default notices till the time the Subject Plot remains encroached OR up to the date on which ban sanction of building plans in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot is lifted OR Revised Lay Out Plan is approved, whichever is later. (x) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice. (5) In Writ -C No. 33193 of 2023 (M/s Brick Town Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others):- “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting aside Impugned Demand Notice dated 27-03- 2023 (Annexure No.2 to this writ petition) purporting to be for payment of alleged outstanding dues towards installments of lease premium amounting to Rs. 99,46,82,787/- and towards annual lease rent amounting to 15,80,90,928/- in aggregate Rs. 115,27,73,715/- in respect of plot no. SC- 02/A-6, admeasuring 37,915 sq. meters located in sports city Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. (ii) Issue writ, order or nature of direction in the mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not take any coercive steps/actions pursuant to the Impugned Demand Notice dated 27-03-2023. 115,27,73,715/- in respect of plot no. SC- 02/A-6, admeasuring 37,915 sq. meters located in sports city Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. (ii) Issue writ, order or nature of direction in the mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not take any coercive steps/actions pursuant to the Impugned Demand Notice dated 27-03-2023. (iii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 to take appropriate decision on the matter pertaining to the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot by removing the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City arising out of the impugned decision of Respondent No.3 in its 201st Board Meeting dated 18-01-2021. (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing and/or setting aside decision of the Respondent No. 3 to stop/put on hold sanction building plans and other approvals of in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City Plot Namely Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P, taken in the 201st Board Meeting of Respondent No. 3 on 18- 01-2021 (Annexure No.3 to this writ Petition). (v) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to allow construction and development of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot in accordance with Approved Layout Plan dated 17-01-2017 (Annexure No. 5 to this Writ Petition) OR in the alternative a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 3 to approve sanction the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent no.5 on 05-12-2022 (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition) and also to provide such other approvals/ sanctions/ permissions from time to time as may be required to enable the Petitioner to commence construction in the Subject Plot in accordance with Lease Deed and the Scheme Brochure for the construction and development of the sports city project in the Subject Plot. (vi) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to (i) grant zero period with regard to the payment of lease premium and annual lease rent in respect of the Subject Plot (ii) grant extension of time for completion of project in the Subject Plot, for the period commencing from 25-03-2020 up to 31-12-2020 on account of outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic and thereafter for the period commencing from 18-01-2021 i.e. date on which the Board of the Respondent No. 3 has suspended the approval/sanction/revision of building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot till the date on which the Respondent No. 3 removes the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City and permits development of sports city project in accordance with Approved Lay Out Plan dated 17-01-2017 OR approves the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent no.5, whichever is later. (vii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not issue any demand note or any further or subsequent default notices up to the date on which ban sanction of building plans in respect of the Subject Sports City Plot is lifted or Revised Lay Out Plan is approved is, whichever is later. (viii) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.” (6) In Writ -C No. 33212 of 2023 (M/s Gray Brick Developers Pvt.Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others):- “(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting aside Impugned Demand Notice dated 27-03- 2023 (Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition) purporting to be for payment of alleged outstanding dues towards installments of lease premium amounting to Rs. 23,10,13173/- and towards annual lease rent amounting to Rs. 3,3713,432/- in aggregate Rs. 26,47,26,605/ in respect of plot no. SC-02/A-5, admeasuring 8080 sq. 23,10,13173/- and towards annual lease rent amounting to Rs. 3,3713,432/- in aggregate Rs. 26,47,26,605/ in respect of plot no. SC-02/A-5, admeasuring 8080 sq. meters located in sports city Plot No. SC- 02, Sector 150, Noida Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P; (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not take any coercive steps/actions pursuant to the Impugned Demand Notice dated 27-03-2023; (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Respondent Mandamus No. 1 to directing the take appropriate decision on the matter pertaining to the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot by removing the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of Greens Lotus Sports City arising out of the impugned decision of Respondent No.3 in its 201st Board Meeting dated 18-01-2021; (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting aside decision of the Respondent No. 3 to stop/put on hold sanction of building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City Plot Namely Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P, taken in the 201 st Board Meeting of Respondent No. 3 on 18-01-2021 (Annexure No. 3 to this writ petition); (v) Issue a writ, nature of order or direction in the Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to allow construction and development of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot in accordance with Approved Layout Plan dated 17-01-2017 (Annexure No. 5 to this Writ Petition) OR in the alternative a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 3 to approve sanction the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent no.5 on 05-12-2022 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) and also to provide such other approvals/ sanctions/ permissions from time to time as may be required to enable the Petitioner to commence construction in the Subject Plot in accordance with Sub- Lease Deed and the Scheme Brochure for the construction and development of the sports city project in the Subject Plot; (vi) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to (i) grant zero period with regard to the payment of lease premium and annual lease rent in respect of the Subject Plot (ii) grant extension of time without payment of any extra charges for completion of project in the Subject Plot, for the period commencing from 25-03-2020 up to 31-12-2020 on account of outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic and thereafter for the period commencing from 18-01-2021 i.e. date on which the Board of the Respondent No. 3 has suspended the approval/sanction/revision of building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot till the date on which the Respondent No. 3 removes the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City and permits development of sports city project in accordance with Approved Lay Out Plan dated 17-01-2017 OR approves the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent no.5, whichever is later; (vii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not issue any demand note or any further or subsequent default notices up to the date. on which ban sanction of building plans in respect of the Subject Sports City Plot is lifted or Revised Lay Out Plan is approved is, whichever is later; (viii). Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.” (7) In Writ -C No. 35911 of 2023 (M/s Vicetech Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others):- “(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the No. 3 to execute and register lease deed in respect of the Subject Plot being SC- 02/P, admeasuring 17,344 sq. meters forming part of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot No. SC-02, Sector- 150, Noida, Gautam Budha Nagar, U.P. and more particularly shown and demarcated in Approved Layout Plan of Lotus Greens Sports City Plot annexed hereto as Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition. (ii) Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to take appropriate decision on the matter pertaining to the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot by removing the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City arising out of the impugned decision of Respondent No.3 in its 201 st Board Meeting dated 18-01-2021. (iii) Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing/setting aside decision of the Respondent No. 3 to stop/put on hold sanction of building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City Plot Namely Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P, taken in the 201st Board Meeting of Respondent No. 3 on 18-01-2021 (Annexure No. 3 to this writ Petition). (iv) Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 to allow construction and development of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot in accordance with Approved Layout Plan dated 17-01-2017 (Annexure No. 2 to this Writ Petition) OR in the alternative a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 3 to approve sanction the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent No.4 on 05-12- 2022 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) and also to provide such other approvals/ sanctions/ permissions from time to time as may be required to enable the Petitioner to commence construction in the Subject Plot in accordance and the Scheme Brochure for the construction and development of the sports city project in the Subject Plot. (v) Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to (i) grant zero period with regard to the payment of lease premium and annual lease rent in respect of the Subject Plot (ii) grant extension of time for completion of project in the Subject Plot without payment of any charges, for the period commencing from 01-03-2016 up to the date on which Respondent No. 3 executes lease deed in respect of the Subject Plot in favour of the Petitioner and further for the period commencing from 18-01-2021 i.e. date on which the Board of the Respondent No. 3 has suspended the evision of approval/sanction/ building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot till the date on which the Respondent No. 3 removes the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City and permits development of sports city project in accordance with Approved Lay Out Plan dated 17-01-2017 OR approves the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent No.4, whichever is later. (vi) Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not issue any demand note or any default notices till the time Respondent No. 3 executes lease deed in respect of the Subject Plot in favour of the Petitioner and further up to the date on which ban sanction of building plans in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot is lifted OR Revised Lay Out Plan is approved, whichever is later. (vii) Issue other any writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.” ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS 34. Initially the batch of writ petitions were argued by Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Prateek Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners. They vehemently submitted that the actual physical possession of the entire leased area of Sports City SC-02 in Sector 150 was not handed over to the petitioners due to dispute between the farmers regarding the acquisition of the land. The additional compensation has also been added as premium and the same was paid by the petitioners. In spite of it the Noida Authority could not sort out the issue with the farmers inasmuch as when the premium was paid, there was no reason as to why the NOIDA Authority could not hand over the land to the petitioners for the development of the sports city. 35. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, to buttress their arguments, made the following submissions. 36. Noida has a policy whereby any land of a project which is threatended by encumbrances would be covered by the zero period policy. The allottee of said land/project is exempted from paying the ground rent, interest and other levies for the entire period till such encumbrances or dispute exists. Since, in this case, on the plot in question there was dispute and encumbrances hence, the benefit of zero period policy should be extended to the petitioners. 37. It was further submitted that since contagious land was not handed over to the petitioners, hence they were not in a position to start the execution of the development of the sports city and that is why the petitioners had requested the respondents to grant benefit of the policy of zero period. 38. 37. It was further submitted that since contagious land was not handed over to the petitioners, hence they were not in a position to start the execution of the development of the sports city and that is why the petitioners had requested the respondents to grant benefit of the policy of zero period. 38. Noida Authority was well aware of these encumbrances and problems and that is why they granted the benefit of zero period for an area of 9,94,218 sqm. from the date of allotment to 30.09.2016 but in the order dated 12.09.2016 granting the benefit of zero period a line was wrongly added that the benefit of zero period will not be extended. 39. They further submitted that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of zero period benefit over the land in question uptill date as the entire physical possession of land has not been handed over to the petitioners. The petitioners are entitled for damages and compensation as the delay was on the part of Noida Authority. 40. Noida Authority in this case had issued the allotment letter way back on 29.10.2016 in favour of the petitioners without having possession of the said land. Even while allotting the said land Noida Authority had not informed the petitioners about these problems. They have misled and misrepresentated the petitioners and because of that the petitioners got into the trouble of what they are in right now. 41. It is an admitted position of Noida Authority that they have handed over the possession of only a portion of the allotted land on 17.08.2017, however, till date complete and vacant possession of the entire land in question has not been handed over to the petitioners, and therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of zero period not only till 17.08.2017 but till date or the date till the entire complete and vacant possession of the land is not handed over to them. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of zero period as per the zero period policy. However, the Authority is not extending the period only on the ground that in the order dated 12.09.2016 it was mentioned that no further benefit of zero period would be awarded to them. The condition what is in existence at that point of time is still continuing now. However, the Authority is not extending the period only on the ground that in the order dated 12.09.2016 it was mentioned that no further benefit of zero period would be awarded to them. The condition what is in existence at that point of time is still continuing now. Since the possession of the entire allotted land was not handed over, they are entitled for the benefit of zero period. Further, the Noida Authority cannot take advantage of its own wrong to the detriment of the petitioners’ interest. 42. NOIDA Authority on 04.02.2020 has sent a notice to the petitioners seeking an update on the development of the recreational facility on the land in question for which the petitioners had given a response highlighting the various issues and sought extension of timeline and also sought the benefit of zero period to be extended to the petitioners till the possession of entire allotted land is not handed over to them. 43. They further submitted that the benefit of directions passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bikram Chaterjee & ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 5 , wherein reduced rate of interest of 8.5% was made applicable on the allottees, should be extended to the petitioners. 44. They pointed out that the Noida Authority has failed to provide access road with functioning system, which was a condition for allotment. The normal infrastructure, which was supposed to be provided, was not provided to the petitioners, and in the absence of the same, the petitioners could not carry out the development of Sports City. 45. The NOIDA Authority has also failed to take steps to intimate the petitioners of the dispute in relation to the land acquisition. On account of the abject failure of the State machinery in safeguarding the interest of allottees, the petitioners has sufferred a huge loss. 46. The additional premium, which was required for the payment of additional compensation, was already included by the NOIDA Authority at the time of allotment of the land in question to the petitioners, and as such, the land was to be given free of encumbrances. However, the land allotted was not free of encumbrances and Noida Authority did not had the possession even to allot the land, and thus, action of NOIDA Authority is nothing but a cheating and criminal breach of trust. 47. However, the land allotted was not free of encumbrances and Noida Authority did not had the possession even to allot the land, and thus, action of NOIDA Authority is nothing but a cheating and criminal breach of trust. 47. They further submitted that in spite of all the odds, the petitioners are still continuing to develop the sports city. The Additional CEO of NOIDA had visited the site and he himself was satisfied with the progress 5 2019(19) SCC 161 of the projects, the construction of infrastructure and the development of sports facility. The petitioners had submitted a detailed progress report along with the future plan in respect of the sports city project. The earlier map was approved by the NOIDA Authority but since the petitioners did not have the possession of the land, he could not execute the project, in the meanwhile the validity of the map had come to an end. The petitioners have again applied for the revalidation of the map and the same is pending. For the reasons best known to NOIDA Authority, they are not revalidating the map, though the entire delay is attributable to the NOIDA Authority. They submitted that because of the inaction of the NOIDA Authority and its failure to provide the complete possession of the land, the petitioners are unable to complete the project. Hence, the relief prayed for in the writ petition may be accorded to the petitioners. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 48. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Kaushlendra Nath Singh and Ms. Anjali Goklani, learned counsel for the Noida Authority submitted that before proceeding in the matter, it is worthwhile to mention the connection of the petitioners along with the consortium and also their antecedents. 49. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the main feature of the Sports City Scheme was the sports facilities, which is an integrated project and has to be developed as a whole. Even if a Consortium Company applied for the project, it was the Consortium as a whole that is assumed to be the lessee and not any individual company. 50. To elaborate his arguments, learned Senior Advocate for NOIDA made the following submissions. 51. The NOIDA invited applications for allotment of Sports City Plot No.SC-02 in Sector-150, NOIDA. As per the brochure a Consortium was also allowed to participate. 50. To elaborate his arguments, learned Senior Advocate for NOIDA made the following submissions. 51. The NOIDA invited applications for allotment of Sports City Plot No.SC-02 in Sector-150, NOIDA. As per the brochure a Consortium was also allowed to participate. An application for allotment of this plot was made by the Consortium in which Lead Member was M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd., along with M/s Three C Infrastructure Private Limited; M/s Three C Infra Square Private Limited; M/s Three C Buildcon Private Limited; M/s Elate Realtor Private Limited; M/s Three C Crest Promoters Private Limited, and M/s Allure Developers Private Limited on 23.6.2014. 52. As per the application, the lead member M/s Lotus Green Construction Pvt. Ltd., was a subsidiary company of M/s Three C Universal Developers Pvt Ltd. The bid was made on the qualification of M/s Three C Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, which was also one of its group company. Surprisingly, Sports City 01/78-79 was also allotted to the same group of companies on the basis of the qualification of the same company i.e. M/s Three C Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 53. Normally, a Consortium is a group of different companies/ builders/ developers, who come together to complete a project. However, in this case most of the members in the consortium were companies, which were incorporated by the same set of Directors/Promoters. 54. On the request of the Lead Member of the Consortium, Noida Authority executed separate Lease Deeds in favour of the Members of the Consortium. Here the original allottee had made a web of companies and on the request of the allottee, various lease deeds were signed by the companies, which were wholly owned and controlled by the promoters namely, Nirmal Singh, Surpreet Singh Suri and Vidur Bhardwaj. However, a perusal of the said lease deed, elucidates that the Sports City Project was supposed to be developed as an integrated whole. 55. The original allottee representing the entire group filed a Master Lay Out Plan for development of the entire Sports City, which was approved, in which they themselves had divided the roles and obligations of each companies towards the development of the project. This decision was an internal arrangement between the consortium members. As far as Noida Authority is concerned, the sports city is an integral project, which had to be developed by the consortium as per the scheme. 56. This decision was an internal arrangement between the consortium members. As far as Noida Authority is concerned, the sports city is an integral project, which had to be developed by the consortium as per the scheme. 56. The Consortium made a request for grant of zero period as the possession of the entire land had not been granted to the Consortium. The NOIDA Authority vide order dated 12.9.2016 declared zero period for the sports city project for an area of 9,94,218 sq meters till 30.09.2016. It was made clear that no further benefit of zero period would be extended to the allottes. This letter/order was never challenged by the petitioners and it has attained finality. After taking the benefit once it is not open for the petitioners to ask for the same benefit again. 57. In spite of availing the benefit of the zero period, and after execution of the fresh payment plan, the petitioners still did not pay the due instalments and a notice for payment of the dues was issued, as of now the outstanding dues for the sports city, as on 31.7.2020, was Rs.1215.14 crore. 58. An audit was conducted by the CAG, who pointed out certain deficiencies in the allotment, implementation and development of sports city. The report of the CAG was tabled in September 2020. Thereafter, the meeting of the Board of NOIDA was held on 18.01.2021 (201 st Board Meeting) in which it was resolved that recommendation should be made to PAC to look into the deficiencies pointed out by CAG and give a report. As an interim measure, it was further resolved that no action should be taken towards development of sports city nor any maps should be revalidated. Further, on the basis of the report submitted in the next Board meeting (202 nd ) held on 25.06.2021, it was resolved that the matter may be referred to the State Government for necessary guidance and direction. 59. The decision of the Board meeting (201 st Meeting), and the subsequent fallout of the decision are the main ground of challenge in various writ petitions filed by the developers in this Court. 60. From the perusal of the brochure, it is evident that various components of development in the Project has been clearly demarcated in percentages. 59. The decision of the Board meeting (201 st Meeting), and the subsequent fallout of the decision are the main ground of challenge in various writ petitions filed by the developers in this Court. 60. From the perusal of the brochure, it is evident that various components of development in the Project has been clearly demarcated in percentages. The entire scheme of the Sports City Project discloses that group housing/ residential purpose is complimentary to the principal objective of development of the sports facilities. The residential purpose and the commercial purpose being complementary to the development of sports facility, hence it can only be viewed to be an integrated project. 61. The sub-lessee cannot claim to be created only for development of Group Housing Project as this will be an antithesis to the integrated project scheme under which the allotment was done. 62. Since, Group Housing does not come in the category of project on a stand alone basis under the Sports City Scheme it cannot be conceived to be a complete project without development of the sports facilities, inasmuch as the sports facility is the primary project and group housing is complimenting the sports facility project and in that sense Group Housing becomes an integral part of the project. 63. As per the sanctioned map, the obligations taken upon themselves for each company in SC-02/ Sector-150 ( M/s Three C Green Developers Sports City Pvt. Ltd.) were as follows:- S.No. Name of Subsidary Company Secto r No. Sub Divided Plot No. Plot Area (Sqm.) Sports Activities as per Approved Layout Plan Status as per Site 1. Land Kart Builders Pvt. Ltd., 150 SC- 02/A1 83970.00 Tennis Centre-1 Tower-1, G+1 ? Tower-2,3,4 Ground Floor ? Tower19,20,21 ? Foundation and Rafting work ? 2. Wiztown Planners Pvt. Ltd., 150 SC- 02/A3 27185.00 Pro Shops/ Food and Beverage Site is Vacant. Work not started. ? 3. Brick Town Developers Pvt. Ltd. 150 SC- 02/A6 37915.00 Basket Ball/ Badminton Court Site is Vacant. Work not started. ? 4. Stroung Biz Prop build Pvt. Ltd., SC- 02/A7 50790.00 ---- Tower-A,B,C, Foundation work is ? started. Tower-D,E,F,G Foundation ? excavation work is started. 5. Wishland Buildzone Pvt. Ltd., 150 SC- 02/A8 50560.00 Site is Vacant. Work not started. ? 6. Wondrous Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., 150 SC- 02/A9 80857.00 Cricket Academy Tower-Life-1, B+S+3 ? Tower-Life-2, B+S+3 ? Tower-Verbe-1 B+S+1 ? Tower-Verbe-2 B+S ? Tower-Verbe-3 B+S ? started. Tower-D,E,F,G Foundation ? excavation work is started. 5. Wishland Buildzone Pvt. Ltd., 150 SC- 02/A8 50560.00 Site is Vacant. Work not started. ? 6. Wondrous Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., 150 SC- 02/A9 80857.00 Cricket Academy Tower-Life-1, B+S+3 ? Tower-Life-2, B+S+3 ? Tower-Verbe-1 B+S+1 ? Tower-Verbe-2 B+S ? Tower-Verbe-3 B+S ? Tower-Verbe-4 Foundation and ? Rafting. 7. Elate Realtors Pvt. Ltd., 150 SC- 02/B 100000.00 ---- Site vacant ? 8 Samridhi Infra Square Pvt. Ltd., 150 SC- 02/D 40186.50 --- Tower D,E,F,G,H,I- Structure complete, finishing work in progress. Tower JG+1 Tower C, K, L-G Floor. Tower-A & B-Construction not started. Sport Activity not developed. 9. Samridhi Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. 150 SC- 02/E 32519.22 --- Work not started. Site is Vacant. 10. ACE Infracity Developers Pvt. Ltd., 150 SC- 02/F 58064.71 --- Foundation work started. 11. Crest Promotors Pvt. Ltd., 150 SC- 02/G 60000.00 -- Work not started. Site is Vacant. 12. Brick Rise Developers Pvt. Ltd., 150 SC- 02/H &1 72000.00 -- Tower-A1-G+9 Tower-A2-G+11 Tower-A1A-A2A-Rafting work Tower-B1-G+5 Tower-B2 G+6 Tower-B3-G+7 Tower-C1-G+7 Tower-BIA, B2A, B3A, CIA, DIA & D1- Foundation work. 13. Fest Homes Developers Pvt. Ltd., 150 SC- 02/J & K 72000.00 ennis Centre-3 Tower-1 B+S+ Tower-2,3 Basement Tower-4-B+S+1 Tower-5, Basement only Tower -6, B+5 Tower-7,8,9,10,11 & 12- Foundation Piling work. OUTSTANDING DUES OF THE SPORT CITIES as on 31.7.2020 64. The total dues of the various Sports cities by their developers were as under:- Serial No. Name of the developer Plot / sector Description of Dues ( In CRORES) i. M/s Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd., sector 78, 79 and 101 401.01 ii. M/s Logix Infra developer Pvt. Ltd., SC-01/150 1685.74 iii. M/s Three C Green Developers Sports city Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/150 1215.14 iv. M/s ATS Homes Pvt. Ltd., SC-01/152 609.18 Total outstanding Dues 3911.07 This outstanding dues as on 31.7.2020, is Rs 3911.07 crores, coupled with the contractual rate of interest till January 2025 the total dues will become more than Rs. 6300 CRORES. 65. The break-up of outstanding Dues as on 31.7.2020 of the SC-02 Sector 150 was as follows:- S.NO Name of Builder Plot No. Total dues as per Lease deed 1. M/S LOTUS GREEN CONSTRUCTIONPVT LDT. SC-02/A/150 173.25 2. M/S LAND KART BUILDERS PVT LDT. SC-02/A1/150 32.05 3. M/S BUILDWALL BUILDERS PVT LDT. SC-02/A2/150 111.34 4. M/S STROUNG BIZ PROP BUILD PVT LDT. SC-02/A7/150 35.22 5. M/S WISHLAND BUILDZONE PVT LDT. SC-02/A8/150 84.38 6. M/S LOTUS GREEN CONSTRUCTIONPVT LDT. SC-02/A/150 173.25 2. M/S LAND KART BUILDERS PVT LDT. SC-02/A1/150 32.05 3. M/S BUILDWALL BUILDERS PVT LDT. SC-02/A2/150 111.34 4. M/S STROUNG BIZ PROP BUILD PVT LDT. SC-02/A7/150 35.22 5. M/S WISHLAND BUILDZONE PVT LDT. SC-02/A8/150 84.38 6. M/S WONDEOUS BUILDMART PVT LDT. SC-02/A9/150 51.36 7. M/S ESCARPMENT BUILDCRAFT PVT LDT. SC-02/A10/150 160.81 8. M/S ELATE REALTORS PVT LDT. SC-02/B/150 170.43 9. M/S SAMRIDHI BUILDMART PVT LDT. SC-02/E/150 50.4 10. M/S BRICK RISE DEVELOPER PVT.LTD. SC-02/H&I/150 44.79 11. M/S FESTHOME DEVELOPER PVT. LTD SC-02/J&K/150 21.8 12. M/S BRICK TOWN DEVELOPERS PVT LDT. SC-02/A6/150 60.25 13. M/S VILLA STONE PROPBUILD PVT. LTD. SC-02/N/150 19.4 14. M/S ACE INFRACITY DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD SC-02/G/150 22.52 15. M/S ACE INFRACITY DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD SC-02/F/150 14.15 16. M/S ALLUURE DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD. SC-02/C/150 94.58 17. M/S NYMPHES INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. SC-02/L/150 68.41 TOTAL 1,215.14 66. This outstanding as on 31.7.2020 of all the allottees of SC-02/150 was Rs.1,215.14 crores, upon adding the contractual rate of interest, the outstanding till January 2025 will be more then 2,700 crores. 67. He further submitted that the way, the provisions of the lease deed and the conditions of the scheme in the brochure were modified/ changed, was quite questionable. It is only after change of the State Government, the scam was unearthed, and the audit report was referred to the CAG. The State Government took a very proactive stand and did not grant any extension or revalidation of map because of the illegality done by the allottees. CHANGE IN SHAREHOLDINGS OF VARIOUS COMPANIES 68. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Advocate submitted that as per the ROC the share holdings of the allottee company has changed after the allotment, though the same was not permissible in the scheme and the brochure. This was done without the permission of the Noida authority . 69. He further submitted that the sports city SC 02/150 was not being developed as per the brochure conditions and the terms of the lease deed. The allottee has extensively violated the terms and conditions, hence he is not entitled for any relief. 70. The petitioners had already availed the benefit of zero period and they are not entitled for any further reliefs. The possession of the land was given along with the allotment letter, the petitioners had the possession and they had started construction of the residential part after the map approval. 70. The petitioners had already availed the benefit of zero period and they are not entitled for any further reliefs. The possession of the land was given along with the allotment letter, the petitioners had the possession and they had started construction of the residential part after the map approval. How can the residential part be constructed when there was no infrastructural facility or the land was encroached. He, therefore, submitted that the plea of encroachment has only been raised by the petitioners, just to avoid payment of dues and to complete their part of obligations. FURTHER ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONERS 71. In response to the above submissions, Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that PAC, which was already looking into the matter, has resolved the issue. Accordingly, an application was also filed to the effect that the issues have already been resolved by the PAC. He, therefore, sought for disposal of the writ petition in terms of the directions of the PAC. ANALYSIS BY THE COURT 72. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties. With the able assistance, we have perused the pleadings, grounds taken in the petition, affidavits and annexures thereto and the reply filed by concerned parties. 73. The issues involved in this bunch of writ petition can be categorised into the following heads:- A) Deviations in the Sports City Project. B) Illegal sale/ transfer of plots. C) Outstanding dues D) Illegal benefits to the allottees. E) Need for lifting of corporate veil F) Liabilities of the Original Allottee with regard to its subsidiaries G) Conduct of the petitioner H) Withdrawal of the Writ Petitions I) Scope of judicial interference J) Inquiry against the delinquent officer & and other conspirators by C.B.I. K) Conclusions DEVIATIONS 74. As per the terms of the Brochure of the Sports City, Clause 8 of the Eligibility conditions laid down the conditions for the allottee, in case they were applying as a Consortium. It specifically stated that members of consortium will have to specify one Lead Member, who would be the single largest shareholder having at least 30% share in the consortium. The shareholding of the lead member in the consortium shall remain at least 30% till the temporary occupancy/completion certificate of at least one phase of the project is obtained from the NOIDA. 75. The shareholding of the lead member in the consortium shall remain at least 30% till the temporary occupancy/completion certificate of at least one phase of the project is obtained from the NOIDA. 75. However, on the date when the map was approved, the share of the lead member was less than 12% of the entire project. The sub-division of petitioners’ share was not possible under the Scheme, but in the present case, it has been done, which cannot be recognised by the Noida authority. The claim of the Lead member that the balance shares were allowed to be transferred, and were held in its subsidiary company, can only be substantiated, if they still hold 100% shares of the subsidiary company. If the same has been diluted then the division would be patently illegal and contrary to the conditions of the sports city scheme/ project. 76. The NOIDA Authority has to look into this aspect and if the division is found contrary to the conditions of the scheme, then suitable penal action should immediately be taken against the allottee / lead member / petitioner. (I)FORMATION OF THE SCHEME 77. The way the scheme was formulated was also not upto the mark. The object of the scheme was for a proper development of the sports city, the division and sub-division of plots, and the transfer without the permission of NOIDA Authority, would not have been the part of the scheme as it was antithesis to its objects. 78. However, the lessee/Sub-lessee(s) were allowed to transfer upto 100% of its shareholding, subject to the only condition that the “Lead Member” (on the date of submission of the tender) shall continue to hold at least 30% of the shareholding in the SPC till the temporary occupancy/ completion certificate at least one phase of the project is obtained from NOIDA. In compliance with the Govt. Order No. 5007/11-5- 2010500(50)/10 DATED 11th October, 2010, issued by the Department of Tax & Registration, Government of Uttar Pradesh, the change in the name of shareholders does not amount to transfer of the property of the Company. The Change in Constitution Deed [CIC] regarding change in the shareholders as a result of transfer of share in the Companies is not mandatory to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. The Change in Constitution Deed [CIC] regarding change in the shareholders as a result of transfer of share in the Companies is not mandatory to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. In addition to this, no stamp duty is leviable on this CIC deed under Clause 23 of Schedule 1b of the Stamp Act, 1899. No transfer charges shall be leviable on the transfer of shares in the Companies and no prior approval of the NOIDA shall be required for transferring the shares. (II) APPROVAL OF THE BID 79. The bid was approved on the qualification of M/s Three C Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and the project was allotted to a company headed by M/s Lotus Green Construction Pvt. Ltd.. The company, on whose basis the project was allotted, was itself found missing. The project was allotted to the company,which was not even eligible to bid in individual capacity. The Consortium had nine members, out of which seven were incorporated after the scheme was declared, and all the seven companies were incorporated by the same set of promoters at the same address. 80. If we delve deep into the reason for incorporating new companies by the same person, it becomes quite clear that the promoters’ right from inception had the intention of transferring/ selling these companies to different entities. If that had not been the intention, there was no other reason to incorporate so many companies and get the allotment issued in their names. 81. Now the next question is why did the officials of the NOIDA Authority agree for such a division which was contrary to the scheme and the brochure, and specially, when the sports city was an integrated project. (III) FAILURE ON BEHALF OF NOIDA AUTHORITY 82. Such a scam of massive magnitude cannot happen without the involvement of officers of NOIDA Authority holding the key posts. The offence was committed regularly for years and undue favours were extended to the allottees. It will not be wrong to say that all the officials, who were the decision makers, were involved from 2011 till date, were involved either directly or indirectly. 83. The officials on the key post of the NOIDA Authority kept their eyes closed, while the builders were selling and developing the residential apartments, but did not do anything towards the development of the sports facilities, which they were supposed to develop first. 83. The officials on the key post of the NOIDA Authority kept their eyes closed, while the builders were selling and developing the residential apartments, but did not do anything towards the development of the sports facilities, which they were supposed to develop first. Purposely, a long rope were given to the builders to collect money from the homebuyers and after syphoning away the same, get the company into insolvency and walk away scot free. 84. Apparently, the Sports City in Sector 150 was allotted to a Consortium. All the Consortium Members including the Relevant Members, were the companies, which were incorporated after the scheme was floated and before the scheme was closed. The promoters in all the companies were Nirmal Singh, Vidur Bhardwaj and Surpreet Singh Suri. There was no reason for these three people to incorporate so many new companies as Relevant Members, unless and until, it was a pre-fabricated design to sell off these companies at a high premium without getting sports city allotted in their favour. 85. The mens rea of these promoters were apparent. After the allotment of the Sports City Project in their favour, their sole intention was to bifurcate the entire Sports City into various plots and sell it at very high premium to the builders at market price, whereas they had only paid 20% of the allotment money and chose not to pay the further dues. 86. Right from the day one the intention of the promoters was only to make money by selling the project to other companies and at the end the companies, which were supposed to develop the sports facilities, were pushed into insolvency. 87. The officers of NOIDA Authority, who were hand in glove with these promoters and subsequent purchasers, chose not to ask for the installments, whenever the same fell due. The intention of the promoters was never to develop the sports city, and that is why even when the maps were sanctioned, the obligation to develop all the sports facilities was kept with two or three companies and the rest of the companies were given benefit of developing the residential flats. The decision was such that the cream of this project was diverted to these smaller companies and all the liabilities to develop the sports facility were kept with two companies. Obviously, these two companies had no intention to develop the sports facilities. 88. The decision was such that the cream of this project was diverted to these smaller companies and all the liabilities to develop the sports facility were kept with two companies. Obviously, these two companies had no intention to develop the sports facilities. 88. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of judgments has held that in case of fraud and where there is need, the Court can pierce the corporate veil and see whether different juristic companies are held by same people or actually they are different juristic personality. In this case, it seems that in some companies the shareholdings have been transferred, but as per the sports city scheme and brochure, no transfer could have happened, unless and until the first phase of sports city is complete. Hence, any transfer done by the promoters of the sports city is invalid. 89. By piercing the corporate veil it is clear that both the Sports City Projects i.e SC-01/Sector 78 & & 79 and SC-02/Sector 150 have been allotted to same set of people. In the present case, haphazard construction has been carried out by various smaller companies, which are supposedly 100% subsidiaries of these promoters/companies. If this is a situation where the proposed sports city cannot be developed, then it is advisable that such sports facility may be developed in SC-01, Sector 78 & 79 and SC-02, Sector 150, NOIDA as both the sports cities have been allotted to the same developers/promoters. They cannot hide behind the smoke screen and mask themselves as different juristic personalities and the liabilities of other companies cannot be fastened on them. (B) ILLEGAL SALE 90. During the course of arguments, the petitioners have suggested that other reputed builders are ready to complete the project. This shows the malafide intention of the petitioners is just to sell away the project to other builders. 91. The intention of sports city was not to grant undue benefit to the allottee. The petitioners herein were also supposed to carry out construction of sports facility, which had to be completed within three years, whereas the residential flats were to be completed within seven years. The promoters had no intention for developing the sports facility. 91. The intention of sports city was not to grant undue benefit to the allottee. The petitioners herein were also supposed to carry out construction of sports facility, which had to be completed within three years, whereas the residential flats were to be completed within seven years. The promoters had no intention for developing the sports facility. The promoters got the map sanctioned, and then launched the project and started booking flats and collected hundreds of crores of rupees from the homebuyers and did not even complete the residential project neither the sports facility. All the money was syphoned off and now after syphoning off the money, they want to further take undue advantage of the project by selling it off to various reputed builders and further make money. 92. Not only this, they have further chose not to pay the installments of NOIDA Authority and also want to take benefit of escalation of price of the project land by palming it off to other builders. 93. The petitioners cannot take advantage of arbitrage, wherein they get allotment done in their favour by paying part amount, then they do not complete construction of sports facility and the other obligations, which came with the allotment. The promoters have been illegally benefiting themselves in the following manner:- “(i) by getting almost 13 lakh sqm land against approved and assigned sports city scheme over 12 lakh sqm land. (ii) by not paying the dues of Noida Authority. (iii) by not completing the project in time. (iv) by collecting money from the homebuyers and not building the residential flats. (v) by bifurcating the entire sports city in such a way that liability of setting up the sports facility is only assigned to few companies whereas the other companies get the benefit of reaping profit by developing and selling the residential part of sports city. (vi) by taking advantage of price escalation of land and now by selling it off to various other builders at high premium.” 94. This Court cannot be a silent spectator of the fraud being played by the promoters in clear connivance with the officials of NOIDA Authority. The petitioners along with other builders have filed various writs in the year 2021, 2022 and while the petitions were pending, the PAC was formed in July 2023. This Court cannot be a silent spectator of the fraud being played by the promoters in clear connivance with the officials of NOIDA Authority. The petitioners along with other builders have filed various writs in the year 2021, 2022 and while the petitions were pending, the PAC was formed in July 2023. Although, initially it was decided by the PAC not to touch the issues, which are pending before the High Court or NCLT, still it seems that PAC has granted them certain benefits and they wanted to negotiate the same. The same was not opposed by NOIDA Authority and NOIDA Authority also requested to extend the benefit to the builders. However, the State Government in its affidavit dated 19.11.2024 had made certain reservations on the imposition of recommendations of PAC. (C) OUTSTANDING DUES OF SPORTS CITIES 95. The total dues of the various Sports cities by their developers as on 31.07.2020 were as follows:- Serial No. Name of the developer Plot / sector Description of Dues ( IN CRORES) i. M/s Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd., Sector 78, 79 and 101 401.01 ii. M/s Logix Infra developer Pvt. Ltd., SC-01/150 1685.74 iii. M/s Three C Green Developers Sports city Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/150 1215.14 iv. M/s ATS Homes Pvt. Ltd., SC-01/152 609.18 Total outstanding Dues 3911.07 96. This outstanding, as on 31.7.2020, was Rs.3911.07 crores, with the contractual rate of interest till January 2025 the outstanding dues would be more than Rs.6300 crores. 97. The outstanding dues as on 31.7.2020 of various companies in Sports City SC-02 sector 150 was as follows:- S.No. Name of Builder Plot No. Total dues as per Lease deed 1. M/S LOTUS GREEN CONSTRUCTION PVT LDT. SC-02/A/150 173.25 2. M/S LAND KART BUILDERS PVT LDT. SC-02/A1/150 32.05 3. M/S BUILDWALL BUILDERS PVT LDT. SC-02/A2/150 111.34 4. M/S STROUNG BIZ PROP BUILD PVT LDT. SC-02/A7/150 35.22 5. M/S WISHLAND BUILDZONE PVT LDT. SC-02/A8/150 84.38 6. M/S WONDEOUS BUILDMART PVT LTD. SC-02/A9/150 51.36 7. M/S ESCARPMENT BUILDCRAFT PVT LDT. SC-02/A10/150 160.81 8. M/S ELATE REALTORS PVT LDT. SC-02/B/150 170.43 9. M/S SAMRIDHI BUILDMART PVT LDT. SC-02/E/150 50.4 10. M/S BRICK RISE DEVELOPER PVT.LTD. SC-02/H&I/150 44.79 11. M/S FESTHOME DEVELOPER PVT. LTD SC-02/J&K/150 21.8 12. M/S BRICK TOWN DEVELOPERS PVT LDT. SC-02/A6/150 60.25 13. M/S VILLA STONE PROPBUILD PVT. LTD. SC-02/N/150 19.4 14. M/S ACE INFRACITY DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD SC-02/G/150 22.52 15. M/S ELATE REALTORS PVT LDT. SC-02/B/150 170.43 9. M/S SAMRIDHI BUILDMART PVT LDT. SC-02/E/150 50.4 10. M/S BRICK RISE DEVELOPER PVT.LTD. SC-02/H&I/150 44.79 11. M/S FESTHOME DEVELOPER PVT. LTD SC-02/J&K/150 21.8 12. M/S BRICK TOWN DEVELOPERS PVT LDT. SC-02/A6/150 60.25 13. M/S VILLA STONE PROPBUILD PVT. LTD. SC-02/N/150 19.4 14. M/S ACE INFRACITY DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD SC-02/G/150 22.52 15. M/S ACE INFRACITY DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD SC-02/F/150 14.15 16. M/S ALLUURE DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD. SC-02/C/150 94.58 17. M/S NYMPHES INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. SC-02/L/150 68.41 TOTAL 1,215.14 98. This outstanding as on 31.7.2020 of all the allottees of SC-02 /150 was Rs.1215.14 crores, with the contractual rate of interest and the outstanding till January 2025 will be more than Rs.2,700 crores. These dues were not paid and shockingly, the officials of NOIDA Authority did not take any steps to recover the same. 99. All the companies gave an undertaking that they will complete their part of sports facilities within next three years, but the same was not carried out. 100. Looking into the market conditions, and the problems of the developers, the State of U.P. issued G.O. on 09.06.2020, whereby the interest applicable on the development projects were reduced. The G.O. reads as follows:- D) ILLEGAL BENEFITS TO THE ALLOTTEES 101. In reference to Government order. dated 09.06.2020, the Noida Authority issued an Office Order on 01.07.2020, wherein rate of interest was reduced to 8.5% but the Group Housing Projects were excluded. The order is quoted hereunder :- 102. Thereafter on 05.01.2021, the Noida Authority had issued a fresh Office Order, whereby it was made clear that the benefit of the reduced rate of interest of 8.5% would not be applicable to the group housing and sports city projects. The letter dated 05.01.2021 is quoted below for ready reference :- 103. However, the officials of the NOIDA Authority, who were in collusion and were bent upon granting undue favours to the builders/developers of the Sports City, in contravention to its own office orders, and contrary to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court, issued a notice on 27.03.2023 illegally extending the benefit of Government order dated 09.06.2020 to one of the allottee. The letter dated 27.03.2023 is reproduced below:- 104. The reason given by the NOIDA Authority to extend the undue favour was based upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bikram Chatterji and others vs. Union of India and others 7 . The letter dated 27.03.2023 is reproduced below:- 104. The reason given by the NOIDA Authority to extend the undue favour was based upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bikram Chatterji and others vs. Union of India and others 7 . This reason is thoroughly misplaced and illegal as Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bikram Chaterji (supra) in paragraphs 14, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24 of the judgment dated 7/11/2022 has held as follows:- 7 (2019) 19 SCC 161 “14. In these proceedings we are principally concerned with the plight of flat holders of Amrapali Group of Companies. In order to see that the projects do not remain stalled and the investment made by all the flat buyers comes out of cloud of uncertainty, certain measures were adopted by this Court in its order dated 23.07.2019. Those measures contemplated restriction on the Noida and Greater Noida Authorities to resume the properties in question, as well as, cancellation of lease deed granted in favour of Amrapali Group of Companies and vesting all the rights in favour of the Court Receiver and NBCC was appointed to complete various projects. These directions were passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances in Amrapali Projects. It was in light of these directions that one of the issues which came up for consideration before the Court related to reduction in rate of interest. The dues payable to Noida or Greater Noida in respect of projects of Amrapali Group of Companies would otherwise have been liable to pay along with interest at certain rates. Since that would have put additional burden on the entire project, it was deemed appropriate to consider reduction in rate of interest. x x x x 17. Around this time a decision was taken by the State Government on 09.06.2020 giving reduction in interest rates generally to all builders pertaining to all projects. However, this court was not aware of the order dated 09.06.2020 when the order was pronounced on 10.06.2020 in the matter reserved earlier. It is true that though it was completely beyond the scope of instant matters to consider the cases of other builders, this Court did to consider the case of builders such as ACE group of companies and the matter was dealt with in its order dated 10.06.2020. It is true that though it was completely beyond the scope of instant matters to consider the cases of other builders, this Court did to consider the case of builders such as ACE group of companies and the matter was dealt with in its order dated 10.06.2020. However, at that juncture it was not known to this court that huge amount running into more than Rs. 3000 – 4000 crores for Noida and Greater Noida Authorities, would be in issue. 18. As a result of the orders passed by this court the builders are now asking for adjustment of whatever they had paid earlier and in certain cases they are even demanding refund of the amount paid in excess. In every case, the concerned builder had opted for allocation of plot on the basis of brochure which had clearly indicated the rate of interest. The allotment letter and consequential lease deed carried the same intent. Thus, every builder was well aware and had entered into transaction with Noida and Greater Noida Authorities with open eyes. Whatever was the impact on account of that rate of interest must have been subsumed in the price which was arrived at and had to be paid by every flat holder. x x x x 20. If even in normal circumstances, the interference with contractual terms is not easily to be taken resort to, it does not stand to reason that in a matter with which this court was not even concerned, the benefit could be extended to the entire body of builders of Noida and Greater Noida. Reference made to a number of stalled projects including some of the projects of the builders who are presently before us, cannot be taken as an indication that the benefits which were to be extended to the flat buyers from Amrapali Group of Companies must also be extended to the flat buyers to the other projects from Noida or Greater Noida. x x x x 23. In conclusion, we must say that this Court erred in granting relief to projects other than Amrapali Group of Companies vide its orders dated 10.06.2020, 19.08.2020 and 25.08.2020. 24. Consequently, the instant applications are allowed and the orders dated 10.6.2020, 19.8.2020 and 25.8.2020 are recalled, as prayed. x x x x 23. In conclusion, we must say that this Court erred in granting relief to projects other than Amrapali Group of Companies vide its orders dated 10.06.2020, 19.08.2020 and 25.08.2020. 24. Consequently, the instant applications are allowed and the orders dated 10.6.2020, 19.8.2020 and 25.8.2020 are recalled, as prayed. The Noida and Greater Noida Authorities are directed to calculate the amount due in respect of builders other than Amrapali Group of Companies after taking into consideration the effect of the order dated 09.06.2020 issued by the State Government.” (Emphasis supplied) 105. The Noida Authority was a party in the aforesaid matter. In fact, the officials of Noida Authority were well aware of the judgment dated 07.11.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The benefit of Government Order dated 9.6.2020 was only for the lessees other then group housing and Sports city. This was clarified by the Noida Authority vide its order dated 5.1.2021 wherein it was made clear that the benefit of the Government order dated 9.6.2020 would not be extended to the group housing projects, and for the Sports city projects. Shockingly still, the Noida Authority issued the notice on 27.03.2023 granting benefit of the Government order dated 09.06.2020 to the allottees of the Sports City Projects. This benefit granted to the developer was contrary to the aforesaid Office Order of NOIDA dated 27.03.2023 as well as judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bikram Chatterji (supra). 106. What is shocking is that Noida Authority itself was before Hon’ble Supreme Court as a party and Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 07.09.2022 has clarified that benefit of the Government order dated 09.06.2020 would not be applicable on other builders and they will be obliged to pay the contractual dues. The officers of Noida Authority, who were well aware of this judgment as well as their own office order, still wanted to extend the benefit to the petitioners. 107. It is shocking to see that the officers of Noida Authority are working contrary to their own Office Orders and also contrary to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, just to grant undue benefit to the developers/builders. F) NEED FOR LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL 108. 107. It is shocking to see that the officers of Noida Authority are working contrary to their own Office Orders and also contrary to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, just to grant undue benefit to the developers/builders. F) NEED FOR LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL 108. Now the question before this Court is whether a company, which gets two sports city allotted in the name of different subsidiary companies; gets lease deed executed in the name of various subsidiary companies, sells them off, makes a huge profit, does not pay the authority the dues, gets the liability of developing the sports facility in one or two company, does not develop it and push the company into insolvency, be liable for the obligations of the subsidiary/sister company? Whether all these companies incorporated for the development of the sports city be treated as a single concern, as they have a common ownership and a common control, their share holdings at the time of allotment were held by the same entity, the same promoters in the most of the members, they had a unified management, common directors, having the same aligned business practices, with operational engagements in collaborative projects that blur the lines between the entities, with interrelated transactions, with strategic alignment, with common business strategies, similar marketing strategies, common customer basses, with a coordinated approach to business. With shared business plans, with the common aligned business of the companies, reflects a common control as the promoters and ownership remains the same. Here all the subsidiaries are inextricably inter-linked corporate entities. incorporated by the promoters as a mere cloak or sham and in truth the business was being carried on by same set of people and not by the company as a separate entity. 109. In such cases, this Court can always lift the corporate veil, and see behind as to who is the real beneficiary. In this case, it is evident that all the companies were incorporated and promoted by same three people. Even the shareholding were with them or the companies were closely held by them and they are liable for the acts and omissions of its subsidiary. G) LIABILITY OF THE ORIGINAL ALLOTTEE WITH REGARD TO ITS SUBSIDIARIES ENGLISH LAW 110. As per the English law The basic feature of a company is that, it is a separate legal entity with distinct legal personality. G) LIABILITY OF THE ORIGINAL ALLOTTEE WITH REGARD TO ITS SUBSIDIARIES ENGLISH LAW 110. As per the English law The basic feature of a company is that, it is a separate legal entity with distinct legal personality. In this fast changing economic world it is inherent that problems with regard to concept of liability of parent company towards subsidiary company would arise. 111. The liability of the parent company towards its subsidiaries were analysed by the House of Lords in the case of Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd. 8 , which was further approved in Adams v Cape Industries Plc 9 8 (1897) AC 22 9 (1990) Ch 433 112. The Court discussed the issue of corporate personality in this case and the court gave a greater thrust to exceptions laid down in the Salomon’s case with regard to the liability of parent company. This paved way to the beginning of creation of the concept of group liability. Several terms are used to denote the relationship between a subsidiary company and parent company. The words like holding companies or subsidiaries, dominant influence etc Lifting of corporate veil is the most commonly used concept in cases relating to group liability. It was for the very first time English law dealt with the concept of group liability, though it is not specified in any law. 113. For this purpose the Courts have gone to the extent of creating various exceptions such as sham transactions to avoid liabilities by creating a facade or a sham to distinguish as a separate legal entity. The piercing of the corporate veil can be carried out to identify if the company is a mere facade, or the subsidiary is an agent of the parent company. 114. When a company holds more than 50% shares of a company and has control over the company then it is a subsidiary company. The subsidiary companies could be incorporated for so many reasons, at times they are formed to create a smoke screen for the illegal activities of the parent company, or to conceal the true facts or to perpetuate fraud or for any manipulative circumstances. Whenever the court comes across with such a situation, the usual phenomenon is to lift the corporate veil to decide on the liability. 115. The exception of sham or fraud was developed by the Courts in the following cases :- (I). Whenever the court comes across with such a situation, the usual phenomenon is to lift the corporate veil to decide on the liability. 115. The exception of sham or fraud was developed by the Courts in the following cases :- (I). Gilford Motor Co v. Horne [1933] Ch 935. In Jones v. Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832 . Russell J. refused to recognise the separate corporate entity of the company under the circumstances of the case to make the defendant as well as the company liable for the specific performance of the contract. (ii). Smith, Stone & Knight Ltd v Birmingham Corp . [1939] 4 All ER 116 , (iii). DHN Food Distributors Ltd v. London Borough of Tower Hamlets [1976] 1 WLR 852 Lord Denning put forward the need to treat a group of companies as one since in reality it works like a single economic en- tity. Pioneer Concrete Services v.Yelnah Pty Ltd (iv) In the New South Wales case of Pioneer Concrete Services v. Yelnah Pty Ltd [20] Young J. considered the authorities and held that the veil should only be lifted where there was in law or in fact a partnership between the companies, or where there was a sham or façade. 116. The court felt the need to develop the concept of enterprise liability, with piercing the corporate veil, to bring liability to the parent corporation for subsidiary’s action. INDIAN LAW 117. This doctrine was followed in India by the Indian Court in the following cases:- 118. In State of U.P. v. Renusagar Power Co. and Ors., 1988 (4) SCC 59 the Supreme Court held that it was clear that Hindalco completely controlled its wholly owned subsidiary Renusagar, including its day-to-day affairs. Renusagar did not indicate any independent volition. Thus, the Court was of the opinion that the corporate veil should be lifted and Hindalco and Renusagar should be treated as one concern. Hence, it was held that Renusagar’s power plant was Hindalco’s own source of generation and was liable to duty on that basis. 119. The Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corpn of India v. Escorts Ltd. & Ors. 11 had emphasized that the corporate veil should be lifted where the associated companies were inextricably connected and appeared as a single concern/entity, the corporate veil should be lifted. 119. The Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corpn of India v. Escorts Ltd. & Ors. 11 had emphasized that the corporate veil should be lifted where the associated companies were inextricably connected and appeared as a single concern/entity, the corporate veil should be lifted. The Apex Court further observed that this was contingent on the relevant statutory provisions, intent, the extent of involvement of public interest, and the effect on parties. 120. The Hon’ble supreme Court in the matter of Vodafone International Holdings BV Vs. Union of India and Another 12 {(2012) 6 Supreme Court Cases 613} held as follws:- 259. The U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Bestfoods 524 US 51 (1998) explained that it is a general principle of corporate law and legal systems that a parent corporation is not liable for the acts of its subsidiary, but the Court went on to explain that corporate veil can be pierced and the parent company can be held liable for the conduct of its subsidiary, if the corporal form is misused to accomplish certain wrongful purposes, when the parent company is directly a participant in the wrong complained of. Mere ownership, parental control, management etc. of a subsidiary is not sufficient to pierce the status of their relationship and, to hold parent company liable. In Adams v. Cape Industries Plc. (1991) 1 All ER 929, the Court of Appeal emphasized that it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil where special circumstances exist indicating that it is mere fagade concealing true facts. “ 121. Hon’ble Madras High Court in the matter of Small Industries Development Bank of Indian v. Creation Investments Equitas Holdings LLC (in OA 1137 of 2019 decided on 6.10.2020), upheld that the holding company and the subsidiary are distinct entities and that the holding company does not own the subsidiary’s assets. However, in this case, both the holding company and the subsidiary were dissolved to avoid legal ramifications. Not only they were the entities one and the same, they 11 (1985) Suppl. 3 SCR 909 12 (2012) 6 Supreme Court Cases 613 were, also operated by the same person. The sole purpose of the person, who created such companies, was to defeat the rights of the parties outside the countries. Not only they were the entities one and the same, they 11 (1985) Suppl. 3 SCR 909 12 (2012) 6 Supreme Court Cases 613 were, also operated by the same person. The sole purpose of the person, who created such companies, was to defeat the rights of the parties outside the countries. Therefore, the Court held that principles laid down in the Vodafone judgment could not be applied to defeat the rights and encourage fraudulent activities. 122. The question which arises here is when will the Original Allottee/Consortium be held liable for the actions of its subsidiaries? 123. The answer is that although it is a settled legal position that a subsidiary is a separate legal entity and is different from its holding/parent company. However, the holding companies and its subsidiary cannot take a shelter under the legal position that they are two distinct legal entities when, the company is the creature of the group, formed in an attempt to avoid recognition by the eye of law, merely to mask the real entities and to cover the business which is actually being carried out by the same set of people. Then the Court can always lift the corporate veil, and hold the holding company liable for the acts and omissions of its subsidiary. 124. From the above ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court it is evident that a Consortium Member/Original Allottee (parent company) can be held responsible for the wrong done by its subsidiary companies, especially when the same is done, as a part of a sham transaction, just to avoid the liability of the parent company. Here as a part of the greater design all the liability/ responsibility is transferred to a 100% subsidiary company which was never completed and all the profit / cream of the project was subdivided into smaller companies and was, sold off at a very high premium. The entire façade of subsidiary companies were created only to defraud the other stake holders. Hence, it will be not wrong to fasten the liabilities of the subsidiary companies onto the parent company. H) CONDUCT OF THE PETITIONERS 125. It is a matter of record that this Court had heard the matter at length on various dates i.e. 15.07.2021, 31.08.2021, 16.10.2023, 30.09.2024, 16.10.2024, 24.10.2024. 126. On 24.10.2024, this Court passed the following order:- “1. Hence, it will be not wrong to fasten the liabilities of the subsidiary companies onto the parent company. H) CONDUCT OF THE PETITIONERS 125. It is a matter of record that this Court had heard the matter at length on various dates i.e. 15.07.2021, 31.08.2021, 16.10.2023, 30.09.2024, 16.10.2024, 24.10.2024. 126. On 24.10.2024, this Court passed the following order:- “1. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rahul Sahai appears for the petitioner. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh appears for the contesting-respondent and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Mohan Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents. 2. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Noida Authority has placed the communication dated 23.10.2024 sent by the Chief Executive Officer, Noida, which is taken on record. 3. Initially a counter affidavit dated 27.07.2023 was filed but seeing the communication dated 23.10.2024 further supplementary counter affidavit may be filed by the Noida Authority as well as the State Government. 4. Let the counsel for the Noida Authority as well as the State Government file response in the matter on or before the next date fixed. 5. On the joint request made by the parties, list this matter on 19.11.2024 at 2 PM along with connected matter.” 127. In response to the aforesaid, Noida Authority in its affidavit dated 18.11.2024, filed before the Court on 26.11.2024, has stated that PAC has cleared the objections raised by CAG on Sports City SC-02, Sector-150, NOIDA in the PAC meeting held on 29.08.2024. The relevant paras of the affidavit are as follows:- “3. That it is pertinent to mention here that the P.A.C. has cleared the objections raised by C.A.G. on Sports City SC-02, Sector-150, NOIDA, in the P.A.C. meeting held on 29.08.2024. 4. That the petitioner have submitted a revised Master Plan for the Sports City SC-02, Sector-150, Noida District-Gautam Budh Nagar the Authority will examine the same once the Board clears the matter after the directions received by the State Government. 5. That the Authority placed the matter of Sports City SC-02, Sector- 150 before the 215 th Board Meeting held on 26.10.2024. 6. That the matter was taken up for consideration by the Board. 5. That the Authority placed the matter of Sports City SC-02, Sector- 150 before the 215 th Board Meeting held on 26.10.2024. 6. That the matter was taken up for consideration by the Board. It was decided by the Board that as the matter pertains to the direction given by the P.A.C. the same can only be considered after directions are received from the State Government in the light of P.A.C. directions.” 128. On the other hand, State in its affidavit dated 19.11.2024, filed before the Court on 26.11.2024, has opposed the contention made by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. It has been clearly stated therein that in the present matter, it has been indicated that there was irregular allotment of the plot for Sports City, and irregular sub- division and also the Sports facilities were not developed in the Sports City till date. In the aforesaid perspectives, a comprehensive enquiry in the matter is required, which is being done. After enquiry/examination of the present matter, the proceeding/direction would be apprised to NOIDA Authority. The relevant para of the affidavit are as follows:- “4. That in this regard, it is respectfully apprised to the Hon’ble Court that the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Noida vide letter dated 14.11.2024 informed that in the 215 th Board Meeting dated 26 th October, 2024, the Proposal for plot number SC-02, Sector-150 was presented for perusal and necessary guidelines. 5. That the Sanchalak Mandal directed that after obtaining necessary guidelines and direction from the State Government the Proposal should be presented. 6. That in pursuance of the aforesaid direction of the Board, and with regard to the aforesaid letter of the Noida Authority dated 14.11.2024 and in compliance of the Hon’ble High Court order dated 24.10.2024 passed in the present writ petition No.15604 of 2021, the request has been made to the State Government for necessary direction to the concerned for undertaking desired steps/proceedings. 7. That it is pertinent to mention that in the present matter it has been indicated that there was irregular allotment of the plot for Sports City, and irregular Sub-Division and also the Sports Facilities were not developed in the Sports City till the date. In the aforesaid perspectives, a comprehensive enquiry in the matter is required, which is being done. After enquiry/examination of the present matter the proceeding/direction would be apprised to Noida Authority.” 129. In the aforesaid perspectives, a comprehensive enquiry in the matter is required, which is being done. After enquiry/examination of the present matter the proceeding/direction would be apprised to Noida Authority.” 129. Thereafter, the matter was again heard on 19.11.2024, 21.11.2024, 25.11.2024 along with the other petitions. 130. After hearing both the parties, the judgment was reserved on 26.11.2024. The order dated 26.11.2024 is quoted hereunder:- “1. Heard Sri Syed Fahim Ahmed, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mohan Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh and Ms. Anjali Gokhlani, learned counsel for respondent -NOIDA. 2. Short counter affidavit filed by learned Standing Counsel and counter affidavit filed by Sri K.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondent-NOIDA are taken on record. 3. Judgment reserved.” 131. Thereafter, a mention was made by learned counsels for the petitioners that certain aspects have not been argued by them and they want to address the same. Though the judgment was already reserved, but on their request, vide order dated 28.11.2024 the matter was again fixed for further hearing on 02.12.2024. 132. On the very next date, Sri Dhruv Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate, appeared and pressed an application for withdrawal of writ petition. The relief sought in the withdrawal application is quoted hereunder:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and permit the petitioner to withdraw the present writ petition at this stage. Otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. And/Or pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 133. The conduct of the petitioners is not appreciated at all. They have been playing fraud in the allotment, development of sports city. Emboldened with their success in defrauding Noida Authority, banks, homebuyers, now they have tried to play fraud on the Court as well. If the petitioners wanted to withdraw the petitions, they could have done it earlier in time, but after the judgment was reserved, this trick was played actually to avoid the judgment. I) WITHDRAWAL OF WRIT PETITIONS 134. Although, the petitioners have the right to withdraw their writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. This right is generally recognized to uphold the autonomy of the petitioners in legal proceedings. 135. I) WITHDRAWAL OF WRIT PETITIONS 134. Although, the petitioners have the right to withdraw their writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. This right is generally recognized to uphold the autonomy of the petitioners in legal proceedings. 135. While the petitioners can request withdrawal, the court has the discretion to allow or reject the withdrawal depending on the circumstances. If the withdrawal is sought after the court has taken significant steps in the case, the court may consider the implications before granting permission. 136. In sum and substance, a petitioner can withdraw a writ petition under Article 226, and the courts generally respect this right. However, the withdrawal is subject to the court's discretion, especially regarding any potential implications for justice or public interest. SCOPE OF JUDICIAL INTERVENTION 137. The crucial question, however, is whether such commercial contracts, which may stem from a Government Policy decision of Noida and the state government, are insulated from judicial review. 138. This issue is no longer res integra and there is no absolute bar, even in matters concerning contracts, on the maintainability of writ petitions. In such cases, the discretion lies with the Court as held in Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India 13 , 2015 (7) SCC 728 which summarised the legal position on judicial review of contracts entered into by public authorities with private parties. Judicial review, being a dynamic process as opposed to static, has experienced a significant shift in terms of the degree of judicial interference in contractual disputes, especially when one of the parties involved is the State or its instrumentalities. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP © 33403 of 2016 (Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd Vs. Federation of Noida Residents Welfare Association & Ors.) 14 , 2024 INSC 1027 . 139. This is because when contractual power is exercised for public purposes, the State and its instrumentalities bear the responsibility to act fairly, without arbitrariness or caprice (Silpi Constructions Contractors Vs Union of India 15 , 2020 (16) SCC 489 ). In such situations, courts are justified in intervening through judicial review to determine whether the State has adhered to the principles embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which mandates fairness and non-arbitrariness in State actions. The involvement of a public authority necessitates cognizance to ensure that the scheme/ Agreement upholds constitutional principles. In such situations, courts are justified in intervening through judicial review to determine whether the State has adhered to the principles embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which mandates fairness and non-arbitrariness in State actions. The involvement of a public authority necessitates cognizance to ensure that the scheme/ Agreement upholds constitutional principles. In such scenarios, it becomes the solemn duty of the judiciary, entrusted under the Constitution as an independent arbiter, to intervene and protect the interests of the public at large. 140. Further, it is crucial to recognise that when a contract involving a State instrumentality like NOIDA, significantly impacting the public, the metes and bounds of judicial review ought to be expanded. The guiding principle is that every State action must prioritise public interest. If a governmental action disproportionately favours a private entity at the expense of public welfare, it is liable to be struck down as invalid. (Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir 16 , 1980 (4) SCC 1 . 141. The State is duty-bound to act equitably and in accordance with the Public Trust Doctrine, ensuring that no action harms the broader public interest. (Ref. Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India 17 , 2012 (3) SCC 1 . 142. The court can expand the scope of jurisdiction of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, but this expansion is subject to certain considerations and principles. Here are the key points regarding the scope of jurisdiction in writ petitions. 143. The Courts have interpreted Article 226 flexibly, enabling them to address a variety of grievances beyond traditional boundaries. For instance, issues related to administrative actions, policy decisions, and public interest can be addressed. 144. Under Article 226(1), the High Courts have power to issue such directions, orders or writs not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights but also for “any other purpose”. 145. The language of Article 226 makes it clear that it confers very wide powers on High Courts to issue directions, orders or writs not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but for any other purpose. Undoubtedly, therefore, Article 226 contemplates the issue of directions, orders or writs for purposes other than the enforcement of fundamental rights. 146. Undoubtedly, therefore, Article 226 contemplates the issue of directions, orders or writs for purposes other than the enforcement of fundamental rights. 146. It’s a trite law that the High court can take suo moto cognizance of issues not raised in writ petitions, if the issues are such which affect the society, particularly in the realm of public administration, even though the issues addressed are not raised in the writ petitions. (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 18 , AIR 1987 SC 965 . 147. Hence, the Apex Court in a catena of judgments had consistently expanded the scope of Article 226 to redress against arbitrary or unlawful decisions, which has not even been challenged in the writ petition. CBI INQUIRY 148. This case can be a case study of the dirty nexus of the builders and the officials of the Noida Authority, where benefits after benefit were doled out to the builders, which was completely contrary to the Scheme, MOA and the implementation of the Sports City Scheme. In last so many years in the Noida Authority a number of officers would have come and gone and surprisingly no one blowed a whistle to the scam, or took any action against them, and did no efforts to recover the outstanding dues, and continued to extend undue benefits / favors to all the allotee / sub- lesses of the sports city, which was contrary to the interest of Noida Authority/Bank and the State Government. 149. What is most shocking is CAG unearthed the scam in 2021, but till date Noida Authority or the State Government have not lodged a single FIR against any of the officials, who were involved in the scam. No effort has been made to retrieve the losses, only a notice was sent in 24.07.2023 asking the builders to pay the outstanding premium. However, no action has been taken to recover the dues. This shows how influential the builder lobby is, and how well entrenched there are in the government system. 150. During course of hearing, the Court has come across the letter dated 27.03.2023, annexed in the pleadings of one of the writ petitions whereby undue advantage has been extended by the Noida Authority to the petitioners by not asking for payment of the premium which fell due along with the contractual rate of interest. 151. 150. During course of hearing, the Court has come across the letter dated 27.03.2023, annexed in the pleadings of one of the writ petitions whereby undue advantage has been extended by the Noida Authority to the petitioners by not asking for payment of the premium which fell due along with the contractual rate of interest. 151. The Court will not be wrong to say that the efforts are made to shield the corrupt officers and also the builders who had made huge amount of money by defrauding the State Government, Noida Authority. 152. The court also realises that all investigations cannot be entrusted to the CBI. The courts should infact be reluctant in straight away referring the matters to CBI. However, in view of the possibility of involvement of high functionaries, a CBI enquiry is more desirable. 153. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in Disha v State of Gujarat, [ (2011) 13 SCC 337 ] found justification in transferring matters to CBI or other Special Agencies when powerful and influential persons or State Authority are involved in the investigation and in cases where an investigation is not likely to go in the proper direction or be biased. This resort, the Hon’ble Court holds, is to lend credibility to the final outcome. Considering that successive officers on various key positions in an institution like Noida Authority and State Government have turned the blind eye to monumental failure on the part of the allottees, and several of these officers are in important and high positions now, a direction to an independent agency to investigate the matter at hand would be appropriate. This is more so in view of the report of the CAG, on which no action has been taken either by the State or Noida Authority. 154. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal, [2010 SCC OnLine SC 297], has held as follows- “70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said articles requires great caution in its exercise. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said articles requires great caution in its exercise. Insofar as the question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.” 155. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram, [ (2002) 5 SCC 521 ], has held that an order directing an enquiry by CBI should be passed only when the High Court, after considering the material on record, comes to a conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by CBI or any other similar agency. 156. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID, [ (2013) 12 SCC 480 ] has held as follows- “13. The issue involved herein, is no more res integra. This Court has time and again dealt with the issue under what circumstances the investigation can be transferred from the State investigating agency to any other independent investigating agency like CBI. The issue involved herein, is no more res integra. This Court has time and again dealt with the issue under what circumstances the investigation can be transferred from the State investigating agency to any other independent investigating agency like CBI. It has been held that the power of transferring such investigation must be in rare and exceptional cases where the court finds it necessary in order to do justice between the parties and to instil confidence in the public mind, or where investigation by the State police lacks credibility and it is necessary for having "a fair, honest and complete investigation", and particularly, when it is imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies.” 157. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., [ (2008) 2 SCC 409 ] has held as follows:-: "31.... this Court or the High Court has power under Article 136 or Article 226 to order investigation by CBI. That, however, should be done only in some rare and exceptional case, otherwise, CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and would find it impossible to properly investigate all of them.” 158. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, [ (2010) 2 SCC 200 ], has held that when the accused are very senior officers of the state then, the investigation by the State investigating agency may not be satisfactorily held. Thus, in order to do justice and instil confidence in the minds of the victims as well of the public, the State police authority could not be allowed to continue with the investigation when allegations and offences were mostly against top officials. Then the investigation should be handed over to any other independent investigating agency. CONCLUSION 159. Since, the petitioners have filed withdrawal applications for withdrawal of the writ petitions, we will not go into the merits of the case and we will not touch the issues which have been prayed in the writ petitions though the same has been argued for days before us. As far as the prayers sought for in the writ petitions are concerned, these writ petitions stand DISMISSED. However, it is made clear that no liberty is granted to the petitioners to re-agitate the same. 160. As far as the prayers sought for in the writ petitions are concerned, these writ petitions stand DISMISSED. However, it is made clear that no liberty is granted to the petitioners to re-agitate the same. 160. This Court, at the same time realises that, we will be failing in our duty, if we allow the petitioners to continue defrauding all the stakeholders and also the Courts as the outstanding dues of SC-02/150 as on 31.7.2020 was Rs.1215.14 crores. However the exact dues including the interest and other dues were never placed before the Court, as it would have revealed the impact of the unholy nexus of the builders and NOIDA Authority. The total outstanding in 2024, for all the four sports cities, were more then Rs.7000 crores, out of which only Rs.304 crores has been collected after sending various notices. This outstanding as on today would be more than Rs.7000 crores. 161. We further find that conduct of the officials of NOIDA Authority is writ large as they had gone against the Sports City Scheme just to provide undue benefits to the petitioners and other similarly situated builders/developers. 162. In the facts and totality of the circumstances, we issue the following directions:- (i). In the facts and circumstances this Court has no other recourse but to refer the instant matter for investigation to the CBI. Accordingly, the C.B.I. is hereby directed to lodge a complaint against all the conniving officials of the Noida Authority and the allottees/builders involved in allotment, development, sanction of Sports City Project and any other person, who may be involved in the present scam. We hope and trust that the investigation would be carried out and completed expeditiously. (ii). In this backdrop, the Noida Authority is directed to issue notice to all the stakeholders/companies in the Sports City-02/Sector 150 calling for the entire outstanding dues within a week as per the contract including interest and penal interest and other dues as per the contract/lease/scheme. Some reasonable time thereafter is granted to the petitioners and other allottees to clear the entire outstanding dues, failing which their allotment will stand automatically cancelled. (iii). In case the allotments are cancelled, Noida authority can call for the fresh bids as per the current market rate, which will certainly be far much higher then the allotted rate. Some reasonable time thereafter is granted to the petitioners and other allottees to clear the entire outstanding dues, failing which their allotment will stand automatically cancelled. (iii). In case the allotments are cancelled, Noida authority can call for the fresh bids as per the current market rate, which will certainly be far much higher then the allotted rate. This direction is issued keeping in view the fact that the CAG had pointed out that Noida had suffered a loss of 9000 crores, in which incorrect pricing was one of the main factors. (iv). However, since this Court is also conscious that the interest of the home buyers have to be protected, if the petitioners are not able to complete the project strictly as per the brochure condition of the sports city scheme and the lease deed conditions. The money deposited by them be forfeited and used for paying back the homebuyers and if there is any shortfall, NOIDA Authority will pay the same. This direction will not adversely affect the NOIDA inasmuch as even after doing that still the NOIDA will make far much more money, if the same scheme is re-launched at the current market price. (v). It is made clear that the original allottee/sub allottees will not be allowed to sell the land or transfer the companies by transferring the shareholding until and unless the first phase of the sports city is completed as per the terms of the Scheme and the Sport City Brochure. Any transfer made contrary to the scheme would not be recognized. The allottee cannot take any further undue benefits and may not be allowed to sell, transfer, lease or change their shareholdings until and unless the first phase of the project is completed. 163. With the aforesaid directions, all these writ petitions are consigned to record.