WP/27409/2025 of M/s. Omics International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India on 24 February 2026

ORDER:

Petitioner is a Private Limited Company stated to be a major Open Access Publisher and international conference organizer. M/s Phoenix Living Spaces Rrt. Ltd. applied for approval to set up a sector specific SEZ for IT/ITES at Ameenpur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. After processing, the l"t Respondent issued formal approval dated

07. L2.2O16 pursuant to Application dated 25.05.2016. Petitioner applied on O4.O3.2O17 to be approved as Co-

Developer in the said SEZ and the l"t Respondent approved the same uide letter dated 3L.O3.2O17 , thereby recognizing petitio:eer as Co-Developer. Petitioner is stated to have purchzrsed Acs.l3.OO of land from M/s Phoenix Living Spaces Pvt. LtC. in Sy.Nos. 34319,343/8 and 343/13 at Rs.S Crore per acre. ()ut of this, Acs.4.O0 was non-SEZ land and Acs.9.00 was SEZ land. Additionally, Acs.2.00 were designated for road access, reflected in registered sale deeds and Co-developer agreerrrents, at cost of Rs.12 Crore. On 12.OT.2OLT, the developer notified Rs.5 crore per acre towards Acs.2.oo road access land and petitioner paid accordingly. The lands were allocatr:d for development of IT/ITES SEZ and non-SEZ.

1.1. In 20 18, it is stated, petitioner was presented with an opportunity by Software Technologr Parks of India (srpl) to generate 6000 emplo5rment through establishment of 199g seats under India BPo business promotion scheme. To secure the venturr: at Ameenpur, petitioner deposited Rs.1.1 crore with STPI and furnished bank guarantee of Rs.2 crore. The Ministry of IT&c, Government of Telangana, addressed letter dated

24. o9-2',ol8 to TSIIC allotting Acs.10.0o of land adjacent to IT/ITEIi sEZ towards non-SEZ purposes for creating 6000 jobs, .l which was confirmed by TSIIC as part of Writ Petition No.13476 of 2024 before this Court.

1.2. The Ministry of i'f&C, Government of Telangana, addressed letter dated O2.A8.2O24 to TSIIC and HMDA to authorize petitioner to unclert.ake necessary road maintenance and beautification in the SEZ area. TSIIC addressed letter dated 27.09.2024 to petitioner regarding request for laying 30 meter approach road for entry and exit to plots in Sy.No.343, Ameenpur, agreeing to remove clebris for laying the road. HMDA addressed letter dated 27.11.2024 granting permission to undertake 3O meter road repair u,orks at Sy.No.343, Ameenpur, Sanga Reddy District. Further, the Ministry of IT&C, Government of Telangana, uide letter dated 06.O2.2025 addressed to various Governtnent agencies, requested prompt processing and approvai o{' ali pending or future applications related to the IT/ITES SEZ at Ameenpur u'ithin 30 days, indicating priority for clevelopment aimed at providing nearly 6000 jobs.

1.3. M/s Phoenix Living Spaces Pvt. Ltd. addressed Ietter dated 3O.O1.2023 to the 3'd Respondent expressing decision to quit the SEZ project at Ameenpur and suggesting a i i : : ;I I ,: 4tt ! I uIt $ f r. x fi i!.:

I !

conversion of petitioncr from co-Developer to Developer. The petition':r :rddressecl various lettcrs r-o Respondents 1 to 3 seeking rec'gnition as Deveroper of IT/rrES sEZ in S-r,..Nos. 343/8 rrnd 343/9 of Ameenpur Vilrage. The 3.d Respondent addressed letrer dated 1o.03.2025 ro the Devr:roper and subseqrLently, letter dated rr.o4.2025 to petitioner- stating that dues of Rs.3 r,sg,ogz /- were pencling from the Developer and unless r.he same were paid, petitioner,s request could not be conside.ed. The Deveroper paid the said amount on o2.o6.2o2s and informed the 3.cr Respondent. 1.4- Petitioner contends that in vierv of section 1o of the special Economic Zones Act, 20os (for short, .the Act), Respondents I and 2 ought t. rra'e accepted the request for conversl,ln purchas,:d Develope.r Develope r from Co-Developer tt; Developer, &s petitioner the SEZ land, was already recognized as Co_ tid"e letter dated 31.03.2012, "rd frFffii.,uf expressed intention to quit and recommendecl petrtioner. It is alreged that stat.utory scheme contemplates suspension and transfer of letter of approval rather than de_ notification of sEZ. However, the 2rd Respondent in its 130th Meeting rlated r1.oz.2a25 decided to de-notify the entire SEZ in g sy.Nos.343/8 and 3431g, Afireenpur village, without recording reasons and without informing petitioner and communicated the said decision to authorities concerned uid"e letter dated 04.08.2025.

1.5. Petitioner asserLs that under section 2(g), Developer includes Co-Developer' and they were recognized as Co- Developer; they purchased strz and adjacent non-sDz land; secured STPI approval; receivccl support and directions from Government of Telangana including letter dated 06.02.2025; and there is no provision in the Act to de-notify a sEZ except suspension under section 10. It is alleged that no notice was given to petitioner though it is recogniz.ed under the Act. [t is alteged that the decision ol Responclents 1 and 2 to de-notify the entire SEZ in Sy.Nos.343/8 and 34319 of Ameenpur Village, is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the 2oo5 Act and violative of principles of natural justice. It is further alleged that the decision Causes irreparable loss as petitioner invested crores of rupees for development of Acs.25.O0 of IT/ITES/Residential projects in Sy.No.343 of Ameenputr Village, obtained necessary permissions from State Government and agencies, and acted based op letter dated 06.A2.2025 of Government of Telangana' I I I i I l j, t, l, I i i I i ! i i I I i ! II

(r

2. This Court by order dated 23.10.2025, granted interim suspension olAgerncla I'.r:;:: No. 130.13 of the Minutes of the 13otr, Meeting o[ thc Boarci of Approval for SEZs. held on 18.07.2',025.

3. The case of Responclents 1 to 3 as put forward in their count.er is that M/s Phoenix Living Spaces Pvt. Ltd. was issued formal approval for setting up a sector specific SEZ for IT/lTEIl at Sy. Nos. 348 /8, 34819 and 348/ 12, communicated uide Depar-tment of Commercr:. letter clated 07.12.2016. The approvll ol' the Boarcl of Approvals approving petitioner as Co- Develo;rcr in the said SE,Z $.,iis comrnunicated uide F.No. l/L7 lr,.ol6-sqz clated 3i.03.2O17. The SEZ of M/s phoenix Living Spaces Pvt. Ltci. was notifieci by the Government of India uide Girzette Notification S.O. No. Zl7S(El dated O5.O7.2OlT.

3. 1. It is further stated, formal approval dated 07.12.'.lOL6 hercl a r.alidity period of three years up to 06.12.2,019 as per Conclition No. I(IIIXLX) of Formal Approval letter clated 07.1'2.2a16, rvhich stipulated that approval is valid for thr:e years within n,hich the Developer shall implement the project and submit project irnplenrentation progress report to GoverrLment of tndia every six months. condition No. I(lll)(xvii)

re f ,4, t' .t: /

stipulated that normally no extension of validity period of three years will be considered and request for extension, if any, must be submitted to the Go,u,ernuent six months before expiry of approval period for consideration by the Board on merits.

3.2. [t is stated, Developer did not implement the project within the validity period of tlrree years as per condition No. I(lllXix) and did not submit any request to the Government six months prior to expiry of the approval period as required under condition No. I(lll)(xvii). The Developer also did not submit any Bond-cum-Legal undertaking as required under Rule 22 of the SEZ Rules, 2oo6 and as mandated under condition No. I(ilI)(ii) of the Formal Approval. F'urther, no project implementation progress report was submitted every six months as required under condition No. I(III)(ix). conseeuently, the validity of Letter of Approval dated 07.12.2016 expired on O6. L2.2Olg.

3.3. M/s Phoenix Living Spaces Pvt. Ltd. uid.e letter dated I 1. I 1 .2a19 applied for full de-norification of their SEZ along with 'No objection certilicate' from the co-Developer - petitioner, thereafter, the state Government of Telangana provided 'NOC' for futl de-notification uid.e letter dated \y/ i N i, i Ii I : I

?:. 18.01.2,O2O received on 22.01.2L12O. Developer was advised to pay Cc,st Recovery Charges fronr 2Oi7-18 to 2Ol9-2O (up to February, 2O2Ol amounting to Rs. i3,48,805 l- uide VSEZ letter dated Ii1.10.2019. 'I'hc said amouir!- rvas paid by the Developer only orr O5.O3.2O20 ancl subsequently, Developer u,as issued letter <lated 29-12.202A direct.ing payment of Cost Recovery Charges for 2O2O-21 amounting to Rs. i2,5O,22O/-. Reminder-1 was isriued uide VSEZ letter datecl L2.O4.2O21 for payment of the sairl amount r,vhich remained pencling.

3.4. While the process of de-notification was under considr:ration, the Developer iltcl.e letter dated 3O.O I .2023 requesl-ed for change of Co-Devcic'per status of petitioner to Develolrer stattts. This request t:..;ulcl not be processed as the validity of formal approval herd already expired on 06.12.2019 and no request for extension o[ r,alidity had been made six monthr; prior to expirry as rc:quired under Condition No. I(lll)(xvLi). Further, Derreloper wais again requested to pay Cost Recoveqr Charges for the periocl 2O2O-21 to 2022-23 uideVSEZ letters ,Cated 06.06.2024 and 02.0 L.2025. J / /

3.5. It is stated tirat the Developer subsequently uide letter dated 2O.O2.2O25 recluested for extension of validity of flormal approval. Hor,vevcr, since Cost Recovery Charges to the tune o[ Rs. 31,5g,O871- were pending, the request could not be processed and several reminclers were issued for payment of dues and Developer ultimately, paid the pending dues on 02.06.2025. White the request for extension of validity was under process, Developer ttirleletter dated O2.A7.2025 requested cancellartion of its earlier Application dated 2O-O2.2O25 for extension of validity and instead sought full de-notification of its SEZ with expired validit},,- of Formal Approval, duly submitting all documents requirerl for lull de-notification as per Ministry of Commerce letter dated L4-O7.2016, citing internal reasons'

3.6. tt is submitted that the latest request of the Developer for futl de-notification of sEZ with expired LoA was processed, and the Board of Approvals in its 13oth meeting held on L8.O7.2025 approved cancellation of LoA (Formal Approval) and de-notification of the entire SEZ area of 4'O5 Ha at Sy' Nos' 34318 and 34319 of M/s Phoenix Living Spaces Private Limited, IT/ITES SDZ, Ameenpur village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District, Telangana. The decision was conveyed by Department ' : ':{.\ r,it ':..8;:

!0 of cornmerce letter dated o4.o9.2o25. It is further stated that thouge the Developer hacr eaiiier submitted request dated 3o.01 2023 for transfler o[ Devtlol;rr- status to co-Developer, the sa.me could not be processecl due to expiry of Formal Approval on 06.12.2019 and non-pa],,ment of cost Recovery Charges raised uide VSEZ ieftc:rs dated L2.O4.2O21 and 06.06.2024. After pavment o[ cllres on o2.o6.2o2s, the Develc,per uide letter datecr o2,.{,7.2(y2s r.r,ithdrew the earlier requesit for transfer and insteacl st;ught full cle-.otifrcation. The Board of Approvals approved thc request under Rule g of the SEZ Rules, 2006 during its l3orh meeting held on lg.oz.2o2s and nrinutes were circulated uide Department of commerce letter dated 04.08.2o25. It is c.nre nded that petitioner,s assertron that the facts warranr recognition of petitioner as Developer is false, baseless and tri-,ter-rable. 3.7 - It is stated furthcr tirzrt the Board of Approvals, being a statut.ory authoritv r-:.nsisting o[ multiple members, after cue deliberations, approvecl ttrc request of the Developer for carLcellation of LoA and de-notiiication of the entire SEZ area of 4-0[i Ha ar Sy. Nos. 343/B and ?:+3lg of M/s phoenix Living spaces' Private Limited, IT/rrES sF;Z, Ameenpur village, and r; !l recorded the same in minutes circulated uide letter dated 04.08.2025. There is no requirement under the 2005 Act or sEZ Rules, 2006 to inform the Ctl.i}eveloper about such decision.

3.8. The Boarcl of Approvals' after due deliberations' accepted the request of ttre Developer for de-notification as the request met all the requirenients of the Act and Rules' It is nstated that the Board is empowered to cotlsider proposals and approveorrejectthenlarrcltlrzrtitisnotnecessarytorecord reasons where the proposai meets statutory requirements' particularlywhenappror,ingthcproposal.Hence,theallegation that de-notification \rras dotle without recording reasons is denied as false, baselc-ss ancl untenable. There is no provision requiring intimation to the clo-Developer prior to de-notification and no 'NOC' flrom co-Developer is required for de-notification' petitioner uid"e e rrlail dated 15..07.2025 indicated that they would submit fresh application for sEZ approval, however, since the Formal Approval expireri on 06'12'2019 and no valid extension was in frrrce and the extension request dated

20. O2.2O25 was withclrawn on O2'OT '2025' the question of fresh ApplicationbyCo-Developerdoesnotariseinthecontextofthe expired LoA : :i !: I I I :i,I I

Fi 3.9- It is stated that Rulc g oi thc 2006 Rules provides that the central Governinent rna..,.. un rccommendation of the Board and on Appllcatio* nri.t<,rc l;\, tl-le Developer, modify, withdr;rw or rescind the notificzrr.it.rii i,[ a slrecial Econo mic zone if satisfied, and that the Devcrcpci- slrarl submit application for withdnrwal of notif,rcation in Frirm c6 to the Development commrssioner concerned as specilicd i' Annexure III who shall forwar<l it to the Lloarrj ..r,ithin fifteen days with recomrnendations. The request [or. de-noiification was processed strictly in accordance rvith Rtrle g. Ir: is stated that SEZ project was n,t commenced and n0 progress n as reported to the Government of India everv six rrronttrs as required under condition No. I(ilr)(ix) of Fr:rnrerr Approvar retter dated 07.12.2',016. The De'eloper did n.L submit any tloncl-cum-Legal Undertreking under Rule 22 to clairn ch-rt1, or tax benefits; therefo-:e, the claim of petitioner r-cgarcling i,rrestment of crores of rupees for implementation of sEz is denied as false, baseless and untenable. 4' Petitioner filecr repr-v stating that the 4rh Respondent - M/s phoenix Living spaces pvt. Ltd. could not It u.ilaterally sought cancerrarion/cie-notification of the sEZ, {.<' l:j as petitioner had already been granted Co-Developer status uide Proceedings of the 2nd Respondent dated 31.O3.2O17. Under Section 2(Sl of the '2005 Act, 'Developer' includes a 'Co- Developer', therefore, petit-ioner has equal statutory status. Respondents 1 to 3 coulcl trot have acted on the letter dated 1 1. 1 1 .2OL9 of. the 4th Responcie nt ignoring petitioner. The letter of the State Government dated 18.O1 .2A2O must be read only as recording the intention of M/s Phoenix Living Spaces Pvt. Ltd. to exit the SEZ anct cannot jus;iilr, cltr-notification of the entire SEZ without reference to petitioner.

4.1. It is denied that cie-notification was in process when cost recovery dues lvere dt;manded under letters dated 31.1O.2O19, 29.12.2020 and 12.04.2021 issued by the 3'd Respondent. The letter dated 3O.01 .2023 of the 4tr' Respondent shows that it sought change o[ petitioner's status to Developer upon,deciding to quit the SEZ. Petitioner did not give 'Noc' for cancellation and expresscd its intention to continue aS Developer. The 4th. Respondent paid Rs.31,59,087 /- as demanded under letters d:rted 06.06.2024 and O2.O1.2025 through covering letter dated 02.06.2025- lt had also applied ,j ; ! t. i

l4 extensicn of the Letter of Approval in prescribed Form C-L uide Ietter da.ted 20.O2.2025

4.2. Respondents 1 to 3 illegally relied upon the letter dated O2.O7.2025 of the 4rt, Respoirdent to de-notify the SEZ without issuing notice to petitioncr. Even if the Act and the Rules do not expressly provide fc;'r uotice to a Co-Developer, any action having civil corlseqllenc:es must comply with the Principl,:s of Natural Justice. Rule 8 does not exclude such notice. lt is alleged that letter dated O2.O7.2025 rvas created to defeat Jretitioner's interest. petitioner had purchased lands in Sy.Nos.l)43l9,343l8 and 343112 from the lancl o\vners and the 4th Responclent never ou,ned thcse lar-rds. The counter affidavit does nr>t deal with the letter clatecl 17.04.2025 of the 3.d Respon<lent at Page No.160 of rtre Writ Petition, addressed to petition,:r stating that the request for change of status to Developer would be processed aftei- approval by the Board of Appr:ove,l of extension of validit-v of Forinal Approval and after payment of Rs.31,59,O87 l- by the 4th Respondent. Despite payment of dues and Application for extension, Respondents 1 to 3 proceeded to de-noti$ the SllZ relving on the letter dated tj' o2-Q2.2')25.

fi i5

4.3. ItisfurtherColltenrledthatunderSectionloofthe Act, the Board must act r,r,here the Developer fails to fulfill obligations under ttrr: L'eticr t:f Approval and cannot straightaway de-notify thc sFlZ w'hen a co-Developer exists and seekschangeofstatus.Theirnpugrredde-notificationis thereflore, stated to be violative of the Principles of Natural Justice, contrary to Section 10 of the Act' arbitrary and unconstitutional, and iiablc to bc quashed with appropriate directions

5. HeardSriVeclula-{rinivas,learnedSeniorCounsel assistedbyMs.VedulaChitralekha,learnedcounselfor petitioner, Sri V'T' Kai5'an' learned Central Government Standing counsel and sri P. Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for Respondent No'4-

6. Learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of theHon,bleSupremeCourlinCho:ndrashekharSingha. state of Jharkhandl wherein it '*'as held that the term 'degree' is defined under Section 2'21.3]tof the UCiC Act' which states that the degree, means the 'BachelrJr's degree" 'Master's degree'and the .Doctorate degree,. Thus, the same'*,ould include within its t (zozs) 9 scc74o lr ial f * ; . I i I I I i i I i i I I i i

lb \ scop(: and ambit ail three, 'Bachelor,s clegree,, .Master,s degree, and e 'Doctorate deqree,.

7. AdmittedlSr, Formal Ap1.ii-oval rjatcd OT.12.2016 was valid up ro 06-12.2o19. conditir:'r No. I(III)(ix) crearly sripulated implementation within three vears and submission of six monthly progress reports. conclitio, No. I(ur)(xvii) required any request for extension to be made six months prior to expiry. Devel<>per did not compry rvith these conditions. No materiar is placecl to show that any exrensior, rvas granted before o6'L2'2olg- The LoA therefore, stood cxpired by efflux of time. 8' Section 10 0f the 2005 Act deals rvith suspension of Letter of Approvar urhere the Deveroper fairs [o discharge functi<>ns or violates terms. The said provision operates when a valid ['etter of Approvar is subsisti.g. tn the present case, LoA had already expired on 06.12.2oLg. There was thus no subsisling approvar capable of siisuension or tra'sfer under Section l0 mispla,:ed. Petitioner's reliance orr Section lO is therefore

9. Further, Rule g of tlic SEZ Rules, 20O6 empowers the ce'tral Government, on recommendation of the Board and on Application made by the Deveh)per, to rvithdraw or rescind j i i : i: II: , It I IIt t I I I

ii t7 notification of a SEZ. Tire record shows that Developer uide letter dated A2.O7.2025 sought full de-notification after withdrawing extension request dated '2A.O2.2O25. The Board considered the request in its l3oth Meeting dated 18.07.2025 and approved cancellation ancl de-notification. The procedure under Rule 8 read witkr Ministry of Commerce letter dated L4.47.2016 was followeci. No violation of statutory procedure is demonstrated.

10. The contention ol' petitioner that notice to Co- Developer is mandatory cannol be accepted in the absence of any provision under the Act and the Rules requiring such notice. The relationship between Developer and Co-Developer is contractual and subject to t.he subsistence of valid Letter of Approval. Once the LoA expirecl on 06.12.20 19 and was not extended, petitioner cannot ciaim an independent statutory right for continuation of SEZ status. The definition under Section 2(g) including Co-Developer does not confer independent status divorced from a vali<l LoA.

11. Petitioner's purchase of lands in Sy.Nos.343/9, 34318 and 343113 and investment of amounts, deposit of Rs.1.1 Crore with STPI ana furnishing of bank guarantee of itl Rs.2 Crore, and communications da_ted 24.O9.2OL8, O2.O8.'.2O24, 27.O9.2A24, 2,7.11.21-)24 ancl O6.O2.2025 issued by State authorities do r-rt>t o'u,crricie the statutory framework governing validity of LoA. Admi.rristrative support letters of the state (]overnment cannot extenr{ or revive an expired Formal Appror,al issued under the 2005 Act.

12. The Board of Apprcrr.,arls is a statutory authority. Its decision clated 18.o7.2a25 aJ;proving de-notification upon requesl of Developer rvith expired LoA cannot be termed arbitrary when LoA had lapscci orl 06.12.2019, no timety extension was sought, and Developer ,ultimately, optecl for de- notificzr.tion. The allegation that -tetter clated o2.or.2o25 was createc to defeat petitioner's intert-:st is unsuppor[ed by material eviden<:e.

13. This Court, in exercisc of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not sit in appeal ovei administrative decisions taken in accordance with statutory provisions unless thcre is illegalii-v, irrationality or procedural impropriety. In the present case, the clecision is traceable to Rule t, of the SEZ Rules, 20A6, and petitioner has not establis;hed violation of any manclatory provision. .t' a\'.

I t9 J I tI & $I i L4. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court holds that the decision of the 2"d Respondent in its 130th Meeting dated 18.07.2025 approving cancellation of Letter of Approval and de- notilication of 4.05 Ha in Sy.Nos.343/8 and 34319 of Ameenpur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, as communicated uide letter dated O4.A8.2O25, is in accordance with the Act and Rules, and does not suffer from arbitrariness or violation of principles of natural justice.

15. Accordingly, the Writ Pe tition is dismissed. No costs.

16. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. ,i SD/-C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To SECTION OFFICER Advocate IoPUCI

1. One CC to SRI VEDULA CHITRALEKHA, Ad

2. One CC to SRI V.T.KALYAN

3. One CC to SRI P.PAVAN KU

4. Two CD Copies (oPUC) SA rI LS

HIGH COURT DATED:2410212020

ORDER

WP.No.27409 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. lb, 0 5 t{AR 2!17fi o z S HE I t * * %