Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lanxess India Private Limited vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 July, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1 WP-5703-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
WP No. 21159 of 2019
(LANXESS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH PINTU DAS AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH AND OTHERS )
WP/5694/2020, WP/5695/2020, WP/5697/2020, WP/5703/2020, WP/5709/2020,
WP/5712/2020, WP/5719/2020, WP/5720/2020, WP/5723/2020
Dated : 25-07-2024
Shri A.K. Chitale, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Manish
Nair, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents / State.
Heard on I.A. Nos.59/2022, 55/2022, 58/2022, 3/2022, 56/2022, 61/2022, 2/2022, 57/2022, 62/2022 & 60/2022, which are the applications for dismissal of these petition due to availability of alternative remedy.
02. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 22.01.2014 passed by the Collector of Stamp under Section 47-A(3) of India Stamp Act, 1899 (in short the Act of 1899) and the order dated 20.09.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain under Section under Section 47-A (4)(6) of the Act of 1899.
03. The respondents have filed applications raising preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground that the petitioners are having alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 47-A(5) of the Act of 1899 for filing an appeal before the Chief Revenue Authorities i.e. Board of Revenue, therefore, these writ petitions are not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in limine due to availability of Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 27-07-2024 18:04:09 2 WP-5703-2020 alternative statutory remedy.
04. Shri A.K. Chitale, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have no alternative remedy because provision of appeal before the Board of Revenue i.e. Section 47-A of the Act of 1899 has been repealed on 23.10.2017 i.e. almost two years after passing of the impugned order. Secondly, these cases are not the case of impounding of instruments under Section 40 of the Act of 1899, whereas the impugned order has been passed treating the instrument value under Section 47-A of the Act of 1899. The right of appeal is available under Section 40 of the Act of 1899 only in cases of the order passed by the Collector and Commissioner in relation to impounding of the instrument. Hence, the objection is not tenable and applications filed by the respondents are liable to be rejected and these writ petitions are liable to be heard on merit.
05. It is correct that Section 40(1) of the Act of 1899 deals with the power of Collector to deal with the instrument not being a receipt or bill of exchange or promissory note is not duly stamped. and Section 47-A of the Act of 1899 gives the power to the Collector to initiate proceedings in respect of instrument undervalued. Section 40(1)(e) introduced by M.P. Act No.30 of 2017 says that any person aggrieved by an order passed in appeal under clause (d) may appeal against such order to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in the prescribed manner. Therefore, the second appeal under Section 41(1)(e) would lie only against the order passed in respect of impounding of instrument, meaning thereby, the order passed in respect of impounding of the instrument.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 27-07-2024 18:04:093 WP-5703-2020
06. Initially, the provision of appeal was there by way of Section 47- A of the Act of 1899 to give right of appeal to any person against such order to the Chief Controlling Authority, M.P. but the said provision has been repealed on 23.10.2017. Therefore, for a cases related to instrument undervalue, only on appeal is provided i.e. to the Commissioner and no further appeal is provided to the Board of Revenue.
07. Even otherwise, availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the High Court to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
08. In view of the above, the preliminary objection raised by the respondent is rejected. As a consequence, all the aforesaid I.As. stand dismissed.
List all these writ petitions for order on merit in the week commencing 12.08.2024.
Let a copy of this order be kept in the connected writ petition also.
(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Ravi Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 27-07-2024 18:04:09