Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Agrawal Education Welfare Society vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 September, 2015
Writ Petition No.13827 of 2015
08.09.2015
Shri Siddharth Gupta, learned counsel with Shri
Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A.A.Barnad, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Heard counsel for the parties.
The petitioner relies on the observations made in para 21 of the decision of the Division Bench reported in 2008 (2) MPLJ 381 in the case of Fr.Lucas I Vs. State of M.P. and another.
We place on record the fact pointed out to us by the counsel for the State that the reported decision is subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court by way of SLP (Civil) Nos.10671/2008 which has been admitted on 26.10.2009.
As arguable question is raised, writ petition is admitted.
As regards interim relief, prima facie, the provision contained in Schedule item 5 (ii) appears to be one of rationalisation of processing charges in the context of volume of sale price and not sensu stricto percentage basis - which was the position in item No. 15 of the Schedule to Rule 4 struck down by a Division Bench of this Court.
The argument of the petitioner, however, is that amount of Rs.12,60,000/- has been demanded from the petitioner. That demand is exorbitant and cannot stand the test of quid pro quo which is the essence of levy of fees, as noticed from the decision of the Division Bench. The petitioner, however, in paragraph 5.6 of the writ petition has not clearly stated that the amount of Rs.12,60,000/- demanded by way of Annexure P-2 dated 26.06.2015, was in respect of one application for processing singular sale agreement. The said communication, however, refers to the proposal submitted by the petitioner Annexure P-7. That also does not clearly indicate that position to the contrary. Instead, an impression is gathered from the averments in paragraph 5.6 of the writ petition that the application submitted by the petitioner pertained to more than one sale transaction and for which aggregate amount of Rs.12,60,000/- has been demanded towards processing fees.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be given liberty to explain this position. Depending on that explanation, we may consider the prayer for interim relief.
Petitioner may file proper affidavit as per the liberty sought before 16.09.2015.
List on 21.09.2015.
(A. M. Khanwilkar) (Sanjay Yadav)
Chief Justice Judge
AM.