Mitha Lal Vaishnav vs State Of Raj. And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6876 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3207/2013 Jitendra Kumar Baheti S/o Late Shri Ramchandra Baheti, age 42 years, R/o Sarafa Bazar, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Inspector General, Department of Registration & Stamps, Ajmer.

2. The Additional Inspector General, Department of Registration & Stamps, Ajmer.

3. The Deputy Inspector General, Department of Registration & Stamps, Division Jodhpur, Jodhpur.

4. The District Collector, Collectorate, Jodhpur.

5. The Treasury Officer, Treasury Office City, Jodhpur.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3077/2013 Mitha Lal Vaishnav S/o Mangi Lal Ji, aged 49 years, by caste Vaishnav, resident of Main Pal Road, Kheme Ka Kuwa, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Inspector General, Department of Registration & Stamps, Ajmer.

2. The Additional Inspector General, Department of Registration & Stamps, Ajmer.

3. The Deputy Inspector General, Department of Registration & Stamps, Division Jodhpur, Jodhpur.

4. The District Collector, Collectorate, Jodhpur.

5. The Treasury Officer, Treasury Office City, Jodhpur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3078/2013 Champa Lal Chasta S/o Shri Mohan Lal Ji Chasta, age 51 years, by caste Brahmin, resident of Purbiyon Ka Bass, Umaid Chowk, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Inspector General, Department of Registration & Stamps, Ajmer.

(2 of 7) [CW-3207/2013]

2. The Additional Inspector General, Department of Registration & Stamps, Ajmer.

3. The Deputy Inspector General, Department of Registration & Stamps, Division Jodhpur, Jodhpur.

4. The District Collector, Collectorate, Jodhpur.

5. The Treasury Officer, Treasury Office City, Jodhpur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3090/2013 Surendra Raj Dhariwal S/o Shri Virendra Raj Dhariwal, aged 42 years, by caste Oswal, resident of Pali Bazar, Mahamandir, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Inspector General, Department of Registration & Stamps, Ajmer.

2. The Additional Inspector General, Department of Registration & Stamps, Ajmer.

3. The Deputy Inspector General, Department of Registration & Stamps, Division Jodhpur, Jodhpur.

4. The District Collector, Collectorate, Jodhpur.

5. The Treasury Officer, Treasury Office City, Jodhpur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3103/2013 Bharat Dhoot S/o Shri Badri Das Ji Dhoot, aged 49 years, by caste Maheshwari, resident of Near Agarwal Nyati Nohra, Khanda Falsa, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Inspector General, Department of Registration & Stamps, Ajmer.

2. The Additional Inspector General, Department of Registration & Stamps, Ajmer.

3. The Deputy Inspector General, Department of Registration & Stamps, Division Jodhpur, Jodhpur.

4. The District Collector, Collectorate, Jodhpur.

5. The Treasury Officer, Treasury Office City, Jodhpur.

                                                                ----Respondents





                                          (3 of 7)                  [CW-3207/2013]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4233/2013 Misses Manju Baheti W/o Shri Roopkishore Baheti, age 50 years, R/o Sarafa Bazar, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Inspector General, Department of Registration & Stamps, Ajmer.

2. The Additional Inspector General, Department of Registration & Stamps, Ajmer.

3. The Deputy Inspector General, Department of Registration & Stamps, Division Jodhpur, Jodhpur.

4. The District Collector, Collectorate, Jodhpur.

5. The Treasury Officer, Treasury Office City, Jodhpur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4471/2013 Ms. Ramakanta Maheshwari D/o Sh. Vaidhkrishna Lal Rathi, aged about 32 years, R/o 40-B, 9th E Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Inspector General, Department of Registration and Stamps, Ajmer.

3. The Additional Inspector General, Department of Registration & Stamps, Ajmer.

4. The Deputy Inspector General, Department of Registration & Stamps, Division Jodhpur, Jodhpur.

5. The District Collector, Collectorate, Jodhpur.

6. The Treasury Officer, Treasury Office City, Jodhpur.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Vinay Jain
                               Mr. Rakesh Arora, Ms. Shalli Gajja
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG assisted by
                               Ms. Akshiti Singhvi

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment / Order

(4 of 7) [CW-3207/2013]

09/05/2022

Since the question involved in these writ petitions is

identical, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this

common judgment.

For the sake of convenience, the facts of the Writ Petition

No.3207/2013 (Jitendra Kumar Baheti V/s State & Ors.) are being

taken into consideration while deciding the present batch of writ

petitions.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present writ petitions have been filed against the Notice

issued by the Deputy Inspector General (D.I.G.), Registration and

Collector (Stamps), Jodhpur asking the petitioner to deposit an

amount of Stamp Duty over and above the sale of Stamps sold by

them to the tune of Rs.1 Lac/Rs.3 Lacs.

Since the petitioner failed to respond to the Notice issued by

the D.I.G. (Stamps), another Communication labeling with the

heading of Notice was issued to the petitioner directing him to

deposit the penalty amount, failing which, the renewal of his

license will not be done. It is also noted that in the present case

as well as in some cases, the reply to the first notice was

submitted before the authorities, however, the petitioner was not

given an opportunity of personal hearing by the authority

concerned. Since the second notice is in the shape of the

imposition of penalty against the petitioner, therefore, the present

writ petitions have been filed challenging the action of the

respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the action of

the respondents is absolutely in violation of the rules and the

same is unreasonable and unconstitutional. They further submit

(5 of 7) [CW-3207/2013]

that the orders passed by the authorities in the garb of notice are

nothing but penalty orders which have been passed without

extending a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

Learned counsel, therefore, submit that the writ petitions may be

allowed and the impugned orders/notices dated 26.02.2013

(Annexure-4) and letter dated 25.03.2013 (Annexure-13) as well

as similar notices in connected writ petitions annexed therewith

may kindly be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned Additional Advocate

General submits that the matter has been examined by the

Departmental Authorities and has tried to submit that the action

of the respondents is absolutely in consonance with law but fairly

admits that the Additional Inspector General (Stamps) has not

extended any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner/s

before passing the order dated 07.12.2012.

Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that

vide letter dated 25.03.2013 (Annexure-13), a Communication to

the petitioner was made by the D.I.G. (Stamps), wherein, it was

made clear that petitioner may appear before him and make

submissions placing his stand to support his contentions. He,

therefore, submits that the writ petitions preferred by the

petitioners are premature and if the petitioners appear before the

authorities concerned and make submissions along with the

representations, the same will be decided in accordance with law.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have

gone through the relevant record of the case.

The Notices issued to the petitioners for the deposition of the

Stamp Duty was responded to by the petitioners by filing

representations in some of the cases, however, the D.I.G.

(6 of 7) [CW-3207/2013]

(Stamps), on getting the instructions from the higher authorities

passed another order whereby, the petitioners were directed to

deposit the deficit Stamp Duty failing which, the license of the

petitioners will not be renewed in their favour. It is noted that the

view taken by the Additional Inspector General (Stamps) is

without giving a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

It is settled proposition of law that if the action of the respondents

entails civil and evil consequences, then a reasonable opportunity

of hearing is sine qua non in compliance of the principles of

natural justice. As the facts noted in the present case, depict that

in pursuance of the notices issued, the representations have been

filed by the petitioners but on getting the guidelines from higher

authorities, the order has been passed labeled as notice entailing

the civil and evil consequences without affording opportunity of

hearing, therefore, the same is in contravention of the principles

of natural justice. The authorities themselves are conscious of this

fact that a reasonable opportunity is liable to be extended to the

petitioners as stated by them in the Communication dated

25.03.2013.

In view of the discussions made above, the present writ

petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to

give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before

taking any final decision in the matter. For the purpose, the

petitioners shall appear before the Inspector General, Department

of Registration and Stamps, Ajmer on or before 30.05.2022 by

submitting a detailed representation/reply to the notices received

by them and the Inspector General (Stamps) will fix the date of

personal hearing. The respondent- Inspector General (Stamps) is

directed to consider the representations/replies filed by the

(7 of 7) [CW-3207/2013]

petitioners and decide the cases by a reasoned and speaking

order, after giving them a reasonable opportunity of personal

hearing in the matter.

Needless to say, the Inspector General (Stamps) will not be

influenced by the communication made by his Office to the D.I.G.

(Stamps) in the matter.

It is also made clear that no coercive steps shall be taken by

the respondents till the Inspector General (Stamps) decide the

matter by reasoned and speaking order.

The stay petitions and other pending applications, if any,

shall stand disposed of accordingly.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 4-10-SunilS/Vivek/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)