Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41387 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4677 of 2025 Petitioner :- Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Thru. Authorized Signatory Pramod Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Infrastructure And Industrial Development Lko And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sachin Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Aahuti Agarwal,Apoorva Tewari Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard Shri Sachin Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent no.1 and Shri Ardhendumauli Kumar, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ashqin Kumar Nair, Shri Abhishek Khare, Shri Ankitesh Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 14.12.2023, passed in Revision No.763 of 2020, which was filed by respondent no.2. The said revision itself was preferred against an order dated 09.10.2023, whereby the claim of respondent no.2 for grant of certain benefits, on account of COVID situation and the policy decision for grant of zero period benefit, was not accepted. For hearing the revision, the benefits were granted by the revisional authority in the form of directions which are contained in paragraph 50, 51, which are reproduced herein below :- "50 यह स्पष्ट हहै ककि पपूरर मम पप्राधधिकिरण दप्रारप्रा शपून्यकिप्राल किके पत्यप्रारकेदन पर कनस्तप्रारण कदनप्राकि 07.07.2020 सके लकेकिर रतरमप्रान पप्राररत आदकेश किके कदनप्रानांकि तकि यप्राचची सस्थप्रा किक अनप्रारश्यकि litigations किप्रा सप्रामनप्रा किरनप्रा पडप्रा हहै धजिसमम यप्राचची सस्थप्रा किप्रा किकई दकष नहहीं हहै। अततः कदनप्रानांकि 07.07.2020 सके लकेकिर आदकेश पप्राररत हकनके किके कदनप्रानांकि तकि दण्ड ब्यप्राजि लकेनके किप्रा किकई औकचत्य नहहीं हहै। 51 शप्रासन दप्रारप्रा किककरड किप्रा पभप्रार समस्त कनमप्रारणकितप्रारओनां पर समप्रान रूप सके हकनके किके किप्रारण एकि रषर किप्रा कनतःशशुल्कि समय करस्तप्रारण शप्रासनप्रादकेश सनांख्यप्रा 2275/77-4-22- 145 एन / 08 टचीसची कदनप्रानांकि 20.07 2022 दप्रारप्रा अनशुमन्य ककियप्रा गयप्रा हहै। अततः पप्राधधिकिरण इस शप्रासनप्रादकेश किके अनशुसप्रार लप्राभ यप्राचची सनांस्थप्रा किक पदप्रान किरके।" 3. The counsel for the petitioner fairly states that the order impugned was passed on 14.12.2023, however, subsequent thereto, considering the hardships faced by various builders, policy decision was taken on 21.12.2023, wherein considering the hardships faced on account of various reasons, the following was decided :- "8. "शशुन्य अरधधि" किप्रा लप्राभ कदयप्रा जिप्रानप्रातः (i) किककरड-19 पहैन्डकेकमकि किककरड-19 महप्रामप्रारची किके दृकष्टगत कदनप्रानांकि 01.04.2020 सके कदनप्रानांकि 31.03.2022 किकी अरधधि मम जिचीरक पचीररयड किप्रा लप्राभ कदयप्रा जिप्राएगप्रा। (ii) ओखलप्रा बडर समचशुरची किके 10 ककि.मची. किके दप्रायरके मम एन .जिची.टची किके आदकेशशों किके क्रम मम कदनप्रानांकि 14.08.2013 सके 19.08.2015 तकि जिचीरक पचीररयड किप्रा लप्राभ कदए जिप्रानके पर गशुप हप्राऊधसनांग पररयकजिनप्राओनां पर किके स-टपू-किके स आधिप्रार पर करचप्रार ककियप्रा जिप्राएगप्रा। ( iii) पररयकजिनप्राओनां पर अन्य पररसस्थकतयशों किके दृकष्टगत पप्राधधिकिरण किकी नचीकतयशों किके अनशुसप्रार किके स-टपू-किके स आधिप्रार पर जिकरक पचीररयड किप्रा लप्राभ कदयप्रा जिप्राएगप्रा। पप्राधधिकिरण मम पपूरर मम जिमप्रा किकी गयची धिनरप्राकश इन पप्राकरधिप्रानशों किक लप्रागपू किरनके किके उपश्चन्त रप्रायत्त नहहीं किकी जिप्राएगची। जिचीरक पचीररयड किप्रा आशय यह हकगप्रा ककि पश्नगत अरधधि मम ब्यप्राजि तथप्रा पचीनल इन्टरकेस्ट नहहीं लगकेगप्रा तथप्रा ककिस्तम उक्त अरधधि सके आगके कशफ्ट किकी जिप्रायमगची।" 4. Learned counsel for petitioner argues that the benefits, as have been extended by means of the impugned order to respondent no.2, were adopted as a policy subsequent to the decision, as such to that extent the benefit could not have been granted prior to formulation of policy. 5. The counsel for the respondent no.2, on the other hand, argued that the policy decision dated 21.12.2023 was taken keeping in view the hardships faced by various builders and on account of the situations through which all the affected parties were going through and once a policy decision has been taken there was no occasion for the petitioner to contend that the said benefit could not have been extended to the respondents and thus prayed that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Considering the fact that the benefits were extended to the respondents based on the earlier Government Order dated 05.12.2019 as well as that they are entitled to the benefits in terms of the policy dated 21.12.2023, the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the benefits have been wrongly extended, cannot be accepted. 7. The counsel for the petitioner further argues that on account of the decision impugned the petitioner-authority has to suffer huge loss to the tune of Rs.197 crores. 8. The aforesaid contention cannot be accepted as a ground for allowing the writ petition, inasmuch as the benefits of policy decision have been extended to all similarly placed persons irrespective of financial implications and thus, the said contention deserves to be rejected. 9. Considering the aforesaid, no good ground for interference in revisional order is made out. 10. The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Arnima Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench