C/SCA/8696/2017 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8696 of 2017 ========================================================== TENSILE STEEL LIMITED Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR JIGAR P RAVAL(2008) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS SUMAN MOTLA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MS DHARA P BHATT(7530) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS KHYATI CHUG for MR. PARTH H BHATT(6381) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 3 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT Date : 07/07/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Learned advocate Mr.Jigar Raval for the petitioner sought for draft amendment. The same is allowed in terms of draft, to be carried out during day. 2. This petition is filed seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 23.02.2017 by respondent no.2-Vadodara Municipal Corporation, under which the development permission granted to the petitioner has been cancelled. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Jigar Raval for the petitioner. Page 1 of 3 C/SCA/8696/2017 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025 Learned advocate for the petitioner relying on the order dated 23.02.2017 has submitted that development permission was cancelled on account of non-fulfillment of certain conditions like no objection not obtained from Railway Authority, non- availability of Environment Clearance Certificate and such other conditions as referred in the order dated 23.02.2017. However, it may be considered that the petitioner had sought for development permission vide application dated 10.03.2014 (Anneuxre B page 19), and upon an application made the petitioner was directed to pay the fees of Rs.5,73,53,360/-, which the petitioner had paid. Learned advocate submitted that though the development permission was cancelled on a technical ground, of non-availability of certain permissions as required under the provisions of the Act, the amount paid of Rs.5,73,53,360/- was not refunded to the petitioner and the same is lying with Vadodara Municipal Corporation – respondent No.2. 3.1. Learned advocate Mr.Raval further submitted that if the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh application seeking development permission along with the required certificates and his case may be considered afresh, since the requisite charges has been paid, his grievance would be redressed and no prejudice would be caused to the respondent – Corporation. Page 2 of 3 C/SCA/8696/2017 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025 4. Learned advocate Ms.Khyati Chugh for learned advocate Mr.Parth Bhatt for the respondent – Corporation submitted that it is true that earlier, the development permission was denied under order dated 23.02.2017 as the petitioner failed to fulfill certain conditions. However, she could not dispute the fact of development charges paid by the petitioner and not refunded till date despite cancellation of development permission. 5. Considering the above fact situation, the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh application seeking development over the subject land as permitted under the provisions of the Act and once such fresh application is filed, it is open for respondent – Corporation to decide the same in accordance with law. The development charges paid earlier and referred in the order dated 10.03.2014 (Annexure B page 19) shall be adjusted towards fresh development application, if any, filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. This court has not gone in to merits of the matter. 6. With this, the present petition is disposed of. 7. Direct service is permitted (MAUNA M. BHATT,J) NAIR SMITA V./47 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: SMITA VINU NAIR(HC00186), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 08/07/2025 14:38:23