The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice in a petition filed by the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) challenging a High Court judgment which had held that YEIDA’s demand for transfer charges was “not capable of implementation.”

A Bench led by the Chief Justice of India observed that the matter requires consideration and accordingly issued notice to the respondents. The Court further clarified that there shall be a stay on any claim for refund qua non-parties, pending further orders.

The Supreme Court has called upon the private respondent as well as the State Government to file their respective counter affidavits.

The challenge arises from the High Court’s findings that YEIDA could not levy transfer charges in the absence of duly framed statutory regulations under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, and that such charges could not be enforced through executive resolutions or office memoranda.

Appearing for YEIDA, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, along with Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, former Solicitor General of India, submitted that the High Court had erred in holding that YEIDA’s demand was unenforceable. YEIDA was also represented by Mr. Amar Gupta, Mr. Divyam Agarwal (AoR), Mr. Pranav Tanwar, and Mr. Parth Dua.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for the private respondent, Gaursons Mega Project.

The dispute centres on whether development authorities such as YEIDA can impose transfer charges on sub-lessees without framing statutory regulations approved by the State Government, as contemplated under Section 19 of the Act, and whether such levies can be retrospectively validated.

The matter is listed for further hearing.

Appearances:

For YEIDA: Mr Tushar Mehta, Soliticor General; Mr Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. and former Solicitor General; Mr Amar Gupta; Mr Divyam Agarwal, AoR; Mr Pranav Tanwar and Mr Parth Dua.

For Gaursons: Mr Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv.