Renew Vayu Urja Private Limited vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2373 AP

               HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
                        MAIN CASE NO.: W.P.No.13291 of 2022
                                   PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.     Date                                       ORDER                                OFFICE
No.                                                                                      NOTE

1.    05.05.2022   SRS,J


                           The present writ petition is filed challenging the
                   order passed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings

No.G/72/2022 dated 31.03.2022, whereby the 2nd respondent directed the petitioner to pay Rs.5,11,67,500/- under Stamp Duty and Registration fee of Rs.1,02,33,500/- totaling to 6,13,41,000/- in respect of Document No.108/2021 of Dk-I of SRO Bandi Atmakur within a period of 30 days from today, failing which coercive action will be initiated to recover the amount.

Heard learned Senior Counsel and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration.

Learned Senior Counsel points out that the document No.108/2021 dated 26.12.2020 is only an agreement evidencing deposit of title deed but no mortgage deed has been arrived as understood by the authorities.

Learned Senior Counsel also points out that when a notice under Section 41-A of the Stamps Act was issued, petitioner submitted explanations on 02.03.202 and 30.03.2022. He submits that without considering the objections raised in the explanations submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order is passed by the authority and the same amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.

Learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment in G.Vallikumari Vs. Andhra Education Society 2010 (2) SCC 497 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

"In his order, the Chairman of the Managing Committee did refer to the allegations leveled against the appellant and representation submitted by her in the light of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, but without even adverting to the contents of her representation and giving a semblance of indication of application of mind in the context of rule 120(1)(d)(iv) of the Rules, he directed her removal from service. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the order adversely affecting an individual and communication thereof to the affected person is one of the recognized facets of the rules of natural justice and violation therefore has the effect of vitiating the order passed authority concerned."

The fact whether the document dated 26.12.2020 is an agreement or mortgage has to be considered, which requires hearing.

Therefore, in view of the facts of the case, there shall be interim stay of further proceedings pursuant to the impugned proceedings No.G/72/2022 dated 31.03.2022 until further orders.

List the mater on 30.06.2022.

______ SRS,J

BSP