Petitioner challenged an order requiring bonded remittance and stamped agreement execution for work order issuance. Court held directive contradicted settled precedent M/s Strong Construction and allowed petition.
Impugned order quashed; petitioner directed to file order copy.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4573 of 2021
Petitioner :- M/S R.K.S. Works Contractor Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sahab Tiwari
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent and Sri Saurabh Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sahab Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and perused the record.
By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality and propriety of the order dated 10.12.2020 whereby petitioner has been directed to bring FDR of Rs. 3,46,355/- and a stamp paper to get the agreement lawfully executed for the purposes of issuance of work order. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the garb of order, the petitioner is now required to submit a stamp duty beyond Rs. 100/-. According to him, this stand of respondent is contrary to the judgment of this Court in the case of Tajveer Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Others, 1997 (2) AWC 1029 which has come to be upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Strong Construction v. State of U.P. and Others decided on 2nd March, 2005, in civil misc. writ petition no. 35096 of 2004 against which SLP has come to be dismissed on 28th March, 2014 and thus law declared in the case of M/s Strong Construction (supra) is now the settled law.
In such above view of the matter the argument is that in identical facts and circumstances several writ petitions have been filed and orders have been passed. The order passed in writ petition 52385 of 2015 is reproduced hereunder:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nimai Dass learned standing counsel.
This case is fully covered by a decision of this Court in the case of M/s Strong Construction Vs. State of U.P. & others in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.35096 of 2004 (decided on 22.03.2005).
Against the order of this Court the State went in appeal (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9495 of 2006), which has been dismissed by Hon'ble Apex Court on 28.03.2014.
In view of the decision of this court in M/s. Strong Construction (supra), the petitioner is liable to pay stamp duty as per Article 57 of Schedule 1B of the Stamp Act.
This case is, therefore, decided of in the light of the above decision of this Court. The
impugned order dated 23.7.2015 is set aside.
The Writ Petition is allowed as above."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that above quoted order has also followed in writ petition C. 39503 of 2018.
Learned counsel for appearing for the respondent does not dispute above legal and factual position.
In view of above, this writ petition is allowed in terms of the directions and the order passed in Writ-C No. 52385 of 2015 and impugned order stands quashed to that extent.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 10.2.2021 A. Pandey
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is required to deposit interim security and execute a stamped agreement despite settled law holding such requirement contrary to precedent.
Whether the impugned order directing payment of stamp duty beyond Rs. 100/- and FDR is maintainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Tajveer Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and OthersReferred¶6
Tajveer Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Others, 1997 (2) AWC 1029
M/s. Strong Construction v. State of U.P. and OthersReferred¶6
M/s. Strong Construction v. State of U.P. and Others decided on 2nd March, 2005, in civil misc. writ petition no. 35096 of 2004
M/s. Strong Construction Vs. State of U.P. & othersFollowed¶9
M/s. Strong Construction Vs. State of U.P. & others in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.35096 of 2004 (decided on 22.03.2005)
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9495 of 2006Referred¶10
writ petition 52385 of 2015Followed¶15
writ petition C. 39503 of 2018Referred¶15
M/S R.K.S. Works Contractor
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
