was granted. Since there was anomaly in the area applied for the license and the area actually granted, the petitioner vide letter dated 2.5.2013 (Annexure P-5) requested respondent No.2 to remove the anomaly and to adjust the excess amount towards the Infrastructure Development Charges (IDC). Even the petitioner made further payment of 5,48,57,000/- towards External Development Charges (EDC) vide letter dated 9.1.2014 (Annexure P-6) and vide letter dated 9.1.2014 (Annexure P-7) also made payment of 2,69,11,000/- on account of IDC. When no action was taken, on the letter, Annexure P-5, the petitioner sent a reminder dated 26.2.2014 (Annexure P- 8) to respondent No.2. In response thereto, vide letter dated 6.5.2014 (Annexure P-9), the petitioner was directed to submit certain documents. The petitioner submitted the required documents vide letter dated 23.5.2014 (Annexure P-10). Again the petitioner made a request to respondent No.2 vide letter dated 20.5.2015 to refund the excess amount. However, vide order dated 9.9.2015 (Annexure P-11), the said amount was refunded to the petitioner. Vide letters dated 20.10.2016 (Annexure P-12) and 23.12.2016, the petitioner was directed to deposit the arrears of the amount towards the license and the petitioner replied the said letter vide letter dated 9.11.2016 (Annexure P-13). Further, vide notice dated 6.3.2017 (Annexure P-14), the claim for exemption as per the policy applicable in terms of EDC etc. was rejected and the petitioner was directed to pay the entire dues. The petitioner replied the said notice vide letter dated 16.3.2017 and also made further payment of ` 1 crore vide demand draft dated 10.8.2017 submitted vide letter dated 10.8.2017 (Annexure P-15). The petitioner vide letter dated 22.9.2017 (Annexure P-16) requested respondent No.2 to refund the excess the amount. The respondents vide letter dated 16.10.2017 (Annexure
