WPMB/188/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 2294 UK

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                  AT NAINITAL
         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
                                 AND
              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL

             WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 188 OF 2023

                             17TH AUGUST, 2023

Between:

Media 24X7 Advertising Pvt. Ltd.             ......          Petitioner

and

Zila Panchayat, Udham Singh Nagar
through Additional Chief Officer             ......          Respondent


Counsel for the petitioner        :   Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel

Counsel for the respondent        :   Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel


The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)



             Mr. Sharma has taken instructions, and we

have heard the submission of the parties.


2)           In the tender conditions communicated to the

bidders in the advertisement dated 13.03.2023, issued

by the respondent, it is stated that the successful bidder

would have to provide a one hundred rupee stamp paper

for execution of the agreement. Clause 17 of the tender

conditions stated that the successful bidder / contractor

shall procure the requisite stamp paper for execution of

the agreement.          Pertinently, the said clause did not
                            2




indicate either the amount, or the formula for calculation

of the requisite amount of stamp paper, which would be

required to be provided by the successful bidder.


3)          The petitioner engrossed the agreement on

stamp paper of Rs.100/-.       The respondents vide their

post communication dated 29.04.2023, communicated to

the petitioner that the stamp paper of Rs.100/- was

insufficient.   However, the said communication did not

inform the petitioner - as to how much stamp duty is

required to be paid on the agreement, and also did not

disclose the formula on the basis of which, the stamp

duty is required to be computed.


4)          Mr. Sharma submits that the respondents,

with a view to steer clear of the law, also sought the

advise / input from the Assistant Director, Stamps, who

communicated on 18.05.2023, that the stamp duty

affixable on the agreement in question was 2% of the

total amount payable under the agreement.       However,

this     communication   was   never   shared   with   the

petitioner, and the petitioner was not informed, that he

has to pay stamp duty at the rate of 2% on the contract

value.    The respondent, thereafter, proceeded to issue
                                    3




the impugned communication, cancelling the petitioner's

contract on 30.06.2023.


5)           We      are   of    the   view   that    the    impugned

cancellation        is   completely      unjustified,      illegal   and

arbitrary.        Firstly, the respondent itself instructed the

bidders      to    produce       stamp   paper   of     Rs.100/-     for

execution of the agreement by the successful bidder.

The petitioner, admittedly, provided the same. Even if,

the respondent was of the view that the stamp duty of

Rs.100/- was insufficient, it was necessary for it to

inform the petitioner - as to how much stamp duty was

payable, or at least the formula, on the basis of which

the same could be correctly calculated.                     only if the

petitioner still did not pay the stamp duty, without

justification, the respondent could have proceeded to

take the step of cancellation of the petitioner's contract.

As aforesaid, these steps have not be taken by the

respondent.


6)           We,         therefore,      quash       the     impugned

communication            dated     30.06.2023,       cancelling      the

petitioner's        contract.          The    respondent         should

communicate to the petitioner the exact amount payable

towards the stamp duty, and the petitioner shall make
                               4




up the deficiency in stamp duty, and execute the

agreement.      In   case,    the   petitioner   disputes    the

computation of stamp duty, the Director, Panchayati Raj,

shall decide the said issue within one week of the

dispute being raised.        The dispute should be raised

within three days of the respondent communicating the

stamp duty payable by the petitioner.            The petitioner

shall abide by the decision of the Director, Panchayati

Raj.   In case, the petitioner still does not comply with

the said direction, it shall be open to the respondent to

take whatever action is considered appropriate in the

matter.


7)        The   petition     stands   disposed     of   in   the

aforesaid terms.



                                         ________________
                                         VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.



                                      ________________
                                      RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.

Dt: 17th AUGUST, 2023 Negi