Disposed

Vasudha Gupta v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2018WRIC/38139/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition. While not interfering with the remand order dated 20.09.2018, it directed the Collector to specifically decide the limitation objection before proceeding on merits. The petition was dismissed without a substantive ruling on the limitation bar.

What did the court decide?

The Collector is directed to specifically decide the limitation objection first before deciding the case on merits.

Vasudha Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 30

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38139 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Vasudha Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Dayal Tiwari,Sabhapati Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Pal, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.

¶6

Present petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶7

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order of respondent no. 2 dated 20.9.2018 so far as it relates non - maintainability of proceedings U/sec. 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act on account of statutory bar of limitation.

¶8

ii) .....

¶9

iii) ...."

¶10

By the impugned order dated 20.9.2018 the matter has been remanded back to the Collector for decision afresh.

¶11

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act itself are barred as more than four years time of limitation has expired, therefore, the same could not have been initiated without taking permission from the State Government and in the present case there is nothing on record to indicate that any such permission was granted by the State. He submitted that this objection was taken even before the Collector but the same was not decided and the revisional court has also committed the same mistake. Submission is that unless it is held that the proceedings are not time barred, no further decision on merits can be taken.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgments in the case of Girish Kumar Srivastava and others vs. State of U.P. and others 1998 (Supp.) RD 532 (HC-FB) and Sheela Srivastava vs. Assistant Commissioner-Ist CCRA 2018 (138) RD 681 .

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel though tried to support the impugned order, however, could not dispute the position as apparent from the record and from the impugned order itself.

¶14

Under such circumstances, no fruitful purpose would be served

¶15

by keeping this petition pending.

¶16

Accordingly, without interfering in the order of remand dated 20.9.2018 it is provided that this objection regarding limitation shall be specifically decided first by the Collector while deciding the case on merits and if proceedings are found to be maintainable, he may proceed further.

¶17

With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 20.11.2018 Lalit Shukla

Vasudha Gupta v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasudha Gupta v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamala Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Gangotri Devi Vs Pargana Adhikari and 3 Others

Om Prakash Mishra Vs State of U P and 28 Others

Ratan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Lawat Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others