Allahabad High Court
M/S B.D.Builders Thru.Prop.Bhagwan ... vs State Of U.P.Thru.Secy.Institutional ... on 17 December, 2019
Bench: Anil Kumar, Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 3 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 35122 of 2019 Petitioner :- M/S B.D.Builders Thru.Prop.Bhagwan Deen Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Secy.Institutional Finance Lucknow & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Shukla,S.U.Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shailendra Singh Chauhan Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents.
The present petition has been filed for the following main reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 16.9.2019 (Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition) so far it relates demanding the stamp duty of Rs 3,600/- for execution of agreement on security amount of Rs. 52,000/- for accepted tender amounting to Rs. 5,14,335/- in gross violation of the provisions of Article 57 of Schedule 1B of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as amended vide U.P. Act 22 of 1988 and also in violation of the ratio of the judgment and order passed by Hon'ble Court in various cases, contained in ANNEXURE NO. 2 TO 8 to this writ petition.
(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to execute the security bond for the completion of accepted tender works mentioned in ANNEXURE NO. 1 on stamp duty paper of Rs. 100 as per provisions of Article 57, Schedule 1B of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as amended vide U.P. Act 22 of 1988 and as per ration of judgment of this Hon'ble Court delivered in several writ petitions."
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that an exorbitant stamp duty has been demanded by the opposite parties from the petitioner for the purposes of execution of agreement vide order dated 16.09.2019 in relation to the repairing work of road from Jhagreshwar temple to K.G. Park Tilak Nagar Kharika Ward Lucknow.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the amount demanded by the respondent no. 3 from the petitioner as the exorbitant stamp duty papers for accepted tender to ensure the compliance and completion of the allotted tender work is illegal as the same is in gross violation of the provisions of the Article 57 of Schedule 1B of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as amended vide U.P. Act 22 of 1988 and also in violation of the ratio of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court reported in 2005 A.L.J. 2336.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 14.11.2005, passed in Writ Petition No. 7059 (M/B) of 2019 (M/s. Asia Construction Vs. State of U.P. and Others). The order dated 14.11.2005, is reproduced below:
"Notice on behalf of the respondent no. 1 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel whereas Mr. Amit Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are ad idem that the subject matter in issue is covered by judgment of this court dated 18.5.2018 passed in writ petition No.14411 (M/B) of 2018 wherein the decision in the case of Taj Veer Singh versus State of U.P. and others reported in 1997 ALJ 285 has been applied.
This writ petition is disposed of in terms of the decision of this Court in Taj Veer Singh (supra).
The petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of the observations/directions contained therein."
Learned Counsel for the petitioner is requested that the similar benefit may be given to the present petitioner.
Learned Counsel for the respondent has no objection, to the prayer made by learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Accordingly, keeping in view the above said facts, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the decision of this Court in Taj Veer Singh (supra).
The petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of the observations/direction contained therein.
With the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
. .
(Saurabh Lavania,J.) (Anil Kumar,J.) Order Date :- 17.12.2019 Jyoti/-