Bombay High Court
Balkisan Dhansukh Gadodiya And 2 ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 6 May, 2016
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
1 WP6919.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6919 OF 2015
PETITIONERS : 1] Balkisan S/o Dhansukh Gadodiya,
Aged 60 years, Occu. Business,
2] Jayesh S/o Manikchand Gagodiya,
Aged about 28 years, Occu. Business,
3] Ganesh S/o Dhansukh Gadodiya,
ig Aged about 52 years, Occu. Business,
All residents of Main Road, Shegaon,
Tah. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana.
- VERSUS -
RESPONDENTS : 1] State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary to the Revenue
and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
2] The Deputy Controller of Stamps and
Registration, Amravati Division, Amravati,
Mangilal Plots, Camp, Amravati.
Tq. And Distt. Amravati.
3] Sub District Registrar Class-I cum Stamp
Controller, Buldana, Taq. And Dist. Buldana.
4] Sub District Registrar Class-I,
Shegaon, Dist. Buldana.
------------------------
Mr. S. A. Mohta, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. C. N. Adgokar, A.G.P. for the respondents
------------------------
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
DATE : MAY 06, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
2 WP6919.15.odt
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally at the
stage of admission itself.
2] By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the orders,
dated 25.06.2012 passed by the respondent no.2 - Deputy Collector of
Stamp and Registration, Amravati Division, Amravati and dated
09.11.2015 passed by the respondent no.4 - Sub-Registrar, Class-I-cum-
Stamp Collector, Buldana.
3] It is stated in the impugned order that the petitioners in
one of the transactions, had deposited lesser amount of stamp duty.
This was found in the draft report of year 2011-12. The order further
states that in spite of issuance of the notices to the parties, there was no
response from them. The order then states that any document, which is
presented for registration at the instance of these petitioners shall not
be registered without prior approval of the respondent no.2 - Deputy
Controller of Stamps and Registration, Amravati.
4] A limited controversy is involved in the present petition. It
is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
3 WP6919.15.odt
order passed by the respondent no.2, dated 25.06.2012 and the
subsequent order passed by the respondent no.3 authority are the
blanket orders, prohibiting the petitioners from approaching the
authority concerned for registration of any document. The learned
counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the documents placed
on record i.e. copy of legal notice issued at the instance of the
petitioners to the respondent-authorities. It was the submission of the
petitioners that stamp duty was paid considering the nature of the
document. It was further submission of the learned counsel that the
authority concerned can issue a notice to the petitioner specifying the
transaction, the document and the alleged deficit amount of stamp duty,
so that the petitioners can contest and raise certain points in their
support and there could be an adjudication, but the respondent-
authorities in stead of undertaking such exercise, passed the blanket
orders.
5] The learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondents submitted that there is a remedy available to the
petitioners for filing an appeal. It is also submitted that certain notices
are issued to the petitioners for the transactions or the documents
wherein lesser stamp duty was deposited. The Revenue Recovery
4 WP6919.15.odt
Certificate was also issued to the petitioners.
6] Considering the orders impugned in the petition, the orders
clearly show that the same are blanket orders, directing the respective
officer namely Sub-Registrar No.1, Shegaon not to register any
document of the petitioners. There is merit in the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioners that such a blanket order cannot be
passed by the authority-concerned. There was also merit in the
submission of the learned counsel that if the authority finds some fault
with a particular transaction or a particular document, the authorities
are free to take necessary steps by issuing notice to the petitioners or
passing order against the petitioners with all the necessary details and
the petitioners can challenge those orders by approaching the
appropriate legal forum. The reply filed by the respondents only refers
to certain notices issued against the petitioners and a remedy available
with them of filing an appeal. Though, there are two replies placed on
record, the replies are silent on the aspect as to how the authority can
pass a blanket order and how such a blanket order can be a subject
matter of an appeal. Nobody prohibit the State-authorities to initiate
proceedings against the erring citizens. At the same time, the
authorities concerned cannot act on their whims and fancies by issuing
5 WP6919.15.odt
blanket orders. On this sole ground, the orders passed by the
respondent-authorities impugned in the petition namely, orders dated
25.06.2012 and 09.11.2015, are clearly unsustainable and the same
deserve to be quashed and set aside.
7] In the result, the writ petition is allowed.
The orders dated 25.06.2012 and 09.11.2015, impugned in
the petition are quashed and aside. Needless to state that the
respondent-authorities are at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings
against the petitioners, if they can specify a particular transaction and
initiate the proceedings in respect of that transaction or transactions.
Rule is made absolute accordingly. The writ petition is
disposed of. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
Diwale
