Facts of the Case

This case has nothing to do with GST law; it is a land-allotment and contract dispute. The Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) had, during the third wave of the Covid-19 pandemic, floated a scheme to allot institutional plots for setting up two 100-bedded pediatric specialty hospitals at Yamuna Expressway, with a tight nine-month construction timeline and a requirement to use pre-fabricated construction material given the urgency.

The petitioner, Apex Multispeciality Hospital Pvt. Ltd., applied under this scheme and was allotted a plot in Sector 20 vide allotment letter dated 10.09.2021. However, instead of proceeding to establish the pediatric hospital as advertised, the petitioner submitted a project report proposing to instead set up a "100-bedded multi-specialty hospital with special focus on pediatric care" — a different project altogether. It also cited lack of on-site infrastructure (electricity, sewer, water, connectivity) as a reason for delay in executing the lease deed. When YEIDA insisted on execution of the lease deed within the original scope, and the State Government rejected the petitioner's revision, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether YEIDA and the State Government were justified in refusing the petitioner's request to change the project from a pediatric specialty hospital to a multi-specialty hospital.
  2. Whether the alleged lack of on-site infrastructure justified the petitioner's over two-year delay in executing the lease deed.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The counter-proposal to build a multi-specialty hospital with pediatric focus stood accepted, since the petitioner's original application was accompanied by that very project report.
  • Necessary infrastructure — electricity, water, connectivity — had not been developed at the site, making it unfair to insist on immediate lease execution.
  • Reliance was placed on M/s Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. N.K. Modi, (1996) 6 SCC 385 and M/s Padia Timber Company (P) Ltd. v. Board of Trustees of Visakhapatnam Port Trust, (2021) 3 SCC 24, to argue that the allotment letter amounted to acceptance of the petitioner's counter-proposal.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The scheme was conceived specifically for the urgent public purpose of pediatric care during the pandemic; the petitioner's insistence on a different project defeated that very purpose.
  • No document on record showed YEIDA ever agreeing to the changed project; the allotment letter did not amount to acceptance of a materially different proposal.
  • The petitioner never even applied for an electricity connection, exposing the infrastructure complaint as an afterthought and pretext for continued non-performance.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court, applying the Supreme Court's ruling in Padia Timber (that an acceptance with a variation is, in law, only a counter-proposal requiring fresh acceptance), held that the petitioner's counter-proposal to change the project was never accepted by YEIDA.
  • It held that permitting such a change unilaterally would unfairly deny other eligible bidders an equal opportunity to bid for a multi-specialty hospital project.
  • On the infrastructure complaint, the Court found the allotment was expressly on an 'as is where is' basis, and that the petitioner could not credibly claim non-availability of amenities without ever having taken possession or applied for connections.
  • Finding no illegality in YEIDA's or the State Government's action, the Court dismissed the writ petition, with no order as to costs.

Important Clarification

This decision has no bearing on GST law or GST compliance. It illustrates ordinary contract-law principles applicable to public land allotments — that a counter-proposal requires fresh, express acceptance to bind the offeror, and that urgency-driven public schemes will be protected from unilateral scope changes by allottees.

Sections Involved

  • Indian Contract Act, 1872 — Sections 4 and 7 (offer, acceptance and communication)
  • Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of in favour of the respondents (YEIDA and the State Government) — the writ petition was dismissed and the rejection of the petitioner's change-of-project request was upheld.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
  • Case No.: WRIT-C No. 20666 of 2023
  • Neutral Citation: 2023:AHC:143011-DB
  • Coram: Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi
  • Date of Order: 18.07.2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.