Allowed

Jai Ma Vindvasini Khadi Gram Udyog Sansta v. State of U P and 4 Others

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2018WRIC/36702/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court challenged orders passed without proper notice and an opportunity of hearing. The bench held that the petitioner was not given a chance to be heard, despite documentary claims to the contrary. The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned orders and the recovery certificate, and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 30.7.2007, 25.7.2017 and recovery certificate dated 12.11.2007 quashed. Matter remanded to Assistant Commissioner, Stamp Jaunpur for hearing within three months.

Jai Ma Vindvasini Khadi Gram Udyog Sansta Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 30

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36702 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Jai Ma Vindvasini Khadi Gram Udyog Sansta Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents and perused the record.

¶6

Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.7.2007 and the order dated 25.7.2017 passed by the respondent no. 3 and order dated 17.7.2018 passed in revisions as well as recovery certificate dated 12.11.2007 issued by the respondent no. 5.

¶7

Apart from other grounds, one of the grounds specifically taken is that no notice was ever served on the petitioner in Case No. 1060 of 1999 initiated under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside, inasmuch the same have been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The restoration application filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default and thereafter another restoration application was filed, which was also rejected, against which the revision was filed that too was dismissed. It has been specifically submitted that there is absolutely no material on record to indicate in what manner the notice was served on the petitioner.

¶8

Highlighting the order sheet, it was pointed out that the case was filed in the year 1999 and on 17.8.1999 the next date fixed was 14.7.2003 that is almost after four years and thereafter the case was transferred to some other Court on 16.7.2004 and it is only after a gap of about three years it was held that service of notice was sufficient.

¶9

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents has submitted that the order sheet reflects that notice was duly served on the petitioner and restoration application was dismissed in default and therefore, it is only after a long gap of about 8 years second restoration application was filed simply to cover up the case.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶11

From perusal of the record, I find that photocopy of the order sheet at page 58 of the paper book though records that notice was served earlier, however, there is no cogent

¶12

evidence of service of notice and restoration application was filed in the year 2007 itself categorically stating therein that no notice or information was given to the petitioner and the order is exparte. It is also reflected from the record that although the recovery citation was issued as back as in the year 2007, the same was prima facie never executed. However, no final finding is being recorded on this issue.

¶13

In such view of the matter, I find that one last opportunity of hearing be given to the petitioner on merits of the case.

¶14

Other arguments on merits of the case were also made, which I am not inclined to entertain at this stage, inasmuch as I am inclined to remand the matter back only on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. All such grounds on merits of the case may be taken before the authority concerned by the petitioner.

¶15

Accordingly, present petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 30.7.2007 and the order dated 25.7.2017 passed by the respondent no. 3 and order dated 17.7.2018 passed in revisions as well as recovery certificate dated 12.11.2007 issued by the respondent no. 5 are quashed. The matter is remanded back to the respondent no. 3-Assistant Commissioner, Stamp Jaunpur, who shall consider and decide the matter strictly in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner without being influenced by any observations made by this Court in the order and the present order may not be treated as any kind of order in favour of the petitioner on merits. The case itself may be decided preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶16

At the cost of repetition, it is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the case of the petitioner and the authority concerned shall apply its own independent mind and decide the matter strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made by this Court in this order or of the fact that the present petition has been allowed.

¶17

It is further made clear that in case the petitioner fails to cooperate in the proceedings, the authority concerned is at liberty to proceed exparte against the petitioner.

¶18

No order as to costs.

¶19

Order Date :- 12.11.2018 Abhishek

Jai Ma Vindvasini Khadi Gram Udyog Sansta v. State of U P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Ma Vindvasini Khadi Gram Udyog Sansta v. State of U P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyapal Singh Vs Firm Swastik Plaza and 4 Others

Smt. Jhumi Kulshreshtha and Another Vs Shiv Shankar Agrawal

Arvind Kumar Yadav Vs State of U P and 7 Others

Bindu Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Uday Bhan Yadav and Another Vs District Magistrate and 12 Others

Krishnapal Vs State of U P and 5 Others