Bombay High Court
M/S Usara Polymers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs Maharashtra Industrial Development ... on 11 March, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:7018-DB
1 WP.8090-14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.8090 OF 2014
M/s USARA Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
Through : Its Director Mr. Mishra
Sachidanand
Age : Major, Occu. Business,
R/o 313, 3rd Floor, Bawa Towers,
Plot No.78/79, Vashi,
Mumbai-400 703. ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, Orient House,
Adi Megabad Path, Bellard Estate,
Mumbai-400 038.
2. Area Manager,
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, Regional Office,
Railway Station Road, Aurangabad.
3. The Regional Officer,
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, Regional Office,
Railway Station Road, Aurangabad.
4. The Executive Engineer,
M.I.D.C. Civil Division,
Railway Station Road,
Aurangabad.
5. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Ministry of Industry. ... Respondents.
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Sanket S. Kulkarni.
Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Mr. S. S. Dande.
AGP for Respondent No.5-State : Mr. P. S. Patil.
...
2 WP.8090-14.odt
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, AND
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 13.02.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 11.03.2025
JUDGMENT :
(Per S. G. Mehare, J.) :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
by consent of the parties.
2. The petitioner has impugned the communication dated
29.08.2013 directing him to pay the charges for extension of
the time limit for approval of revised building plans and
completion of factory building.
3. The dispute revolves around the period of completing
the constructions in view of the agreement. Admittedly, the
agreements were executed between the parties. The Agreement
dated 26.04.2007 was pressed into service wherein the clause
for time limit for commencement and completion for
construction work was inserted. The petitioner as well as
contesting respondents were interpreting this clause. The
petitioner contends that in view of clause 4 (d) of the said
agreement, the obligation upon him to complete was within
seven (7) years from the commencement of the construction.
Referring to Clause (a), it has been pointed out that from the
3 WP.8090-14.odt
date of agreement, the development plans were to be
submitted within 48 months from the date of agreement and
from commencement of construction it should be completed
within seven years. The petitioner has commenced the
construction before 48 months and thereafter completed the
constructions within seven (7) years. He applied for issuing
building construction certificate on 27.08.2013. The Deputy
Engineer of MIDC took the inspection and submitted the report
on 10.10.2013. He had applied for sanction to the additional
construction on 14.08.2013. The respondent directed him to
pay the required fee for the additional construction permission.
Accordingly, he had deposited the said amount as demanded
for additional construction. He completed the constructions as
per the layout plan.
4. The contesting respondents have filed affidavit-in-reply.
They have denied the interpretation of the petitioner. They
have a case that as per the policy of the respondent prevailing
on the date of execution, the time limit for completion of
construction and obtaining building construction certificate
was only four years and it was mentioned in the agreement
executed between the petitioner and the respondents. The
petitioner has no enforceable right. Hence, the petition cannot
4 WP.8090-14.odt
be entertained. It has been further submitted that the
petitioner was well aware that the time limit was four years.
He is taking the undue advantage of typographical error in the
agreement which was incorrectly typed as seven years instead
of four years. In view of the policy, the then in force, the
construction was not completed within four years, the
petitioner is liable to pay the extension charges. Therefore, the
demand letter dated 29.08.2013 is legal, correct and proper.
The petitioner had no vested right to claim the period of seven
years for development of the said plot. It was simply a lease
agreement and it was agreed to submit the building plan
proposed to be constructed on the plot to the Authority of the
respondent. The petitioner was mere licensee of the
Corporation. The Corporation has power to terminate the said
agreement and resume the land if the terms and conditions
have been breached. It is a question of disputed fact.
Therefore, the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious
remedy. Then also the writ petition could not be entertained.
The respondents have referred to the other agreements to
support its case that the time limit was only four years at the
time of execution of the agreement.
5 WP.8090-14.odt
5. Heard the respective learned counsels at length. They
have reiterated their arguments as per their pleadings.
6. The question is "whether the respondents can deny the
terms of agreement"?
7. The agreement was executed on 26.04.2007. This
agreement was pursuant to the application of the petitioner for
leasing the land. Both parties mutually agreed the terms and
conditions by way of the instrument. Sub clause (a) of Clause
4 of the said agreement provides that from the date of the
execution of the lease, the lessee should submit the plan for
approval within 48 months thereof. Clause (c) was prohibiting
the lessee to begin the work until the plans are approved. The
petitioner had submitted the plans on 29.06.2010 which was
within 48 months. It was approved on 03.11.2010. In this
context, clause (d) of the said agreement is to be interpreted. It
reiterated again the time limit for commencement and
completion of the construction work for the ready reference we
reproduce itself.
"4 (d) - That it shall within a period 48 months from the
date hereof commence, and within a period of seven
years from the said date at their own expense and in a
substantial and workman like manner and with new and
6 WP.8090-14.odt
sound material and in compliance with all Municipal
rules Development Control Rules of MIDC bye-Laws and
regulations applicable thereto and in strict accordance
with the plans, elevations, details and specifications to
the satisfaction of the Special Planning Authority
Executive Engineer and conformity to the building lines
marked on the plan hereto annexed and the
Development Control Rules of MIDC Building Regulations
set out in the Second Schedule hereunder written, build
and completely finish fit for occupation a building to be
used as an industrial factory with all requisite drains and
other proper conveniences thereto."
8. The only dispute raised by the respondent is that there
was a typographical mistake instead of four years, seven years
was inadvertently typed in the said clause. The petitioner has
specific case that immediately after the approval the
construction was started and it was completed within seven
years from the date of the approval. For the dates of the
approval/sanction to the plans and completion thereafter are
not much disputed. The question is can this typographical
mistake would suffer the petitioner from understanding its
meaning. The law is well settled that the parties are bound by
the contract. For such a typographical mistake, the existing
policy at the relevant time would not help the contesting
respondent for the reason that till he sought the completion
certificate, the mistakes was never rectified or informed the
7 WP.8090-14.odt
petitioner. The terms of agreement were specific and
unambiguous. Though the policy was there that the
construction should have been completed within four years,
the petitioner was relying on the terms of agreement with him
which was providing seven years for completion of the
constructions from the date of sanctioning the development
plan. We are of the opinion that since the parties are bound by
the terms of agreement, no benefit of typographical mistake
which was not rectified within reasonable period be granted to
the respondent. Rest of the matter is not disputed.
Appreciating the material on record, we do not consider that
the serious disputed questions of facts are involved in the
matter and the writ petition cannot be entertained. The matter
was about the interpretation of the agreement clauses. We read
it and find that the period for construction was seven years was
explicitly inserted in the agreement. These facts are not denied.
Therefore, we opine that there is no substance in the
submission of the respondent. Respondent is bound by the
terms of agreement. At the cost of repetition, we reiterated that
the typographical mistake was not rectified in time nor any
action was taken against the petitioner forthwith or within a
reasonable time for not completing the construction. On the
contrary, the respondent sanctioned the additional construction
8 WP.8090-14.odt
and the petitioner had deposited the charges therefor. In view
of this peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of
the opinion that since the petitioner is not at fault, he cannot
be penalized or directed to pay the penalty for extension of
time as per the impugned communication dated 29.08.2013.
Hence, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The communication dated 29.08.2013 directing
the petitioner to pay the extension charges stands
quashed and set aside.
(iii) Contesting respondent is directed to issue a
building completion construction certificate to the
petitioner within four (4) weeks from today by
following further rules as required under the
MIDC Act.
(iv) Rule made absolute.
(v) No order as to costs.
(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (S. G. MEHARE, J.)
...
vmk/-
