MOHINDER R RAMCHANDANI Vs. CHIEF CONTROLLING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned AGP, Ms.Nisha Parikh waived service, and consented to hearing and final disposal of the matter today.

(2.) Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has approached this Court to challenge communication dated 16-10-2006 and order dated 22-1-2007, whereby application dated 12-6-2002 of the petitioner under the provisions of Section 53 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (for short Sthe Act ) was rejected on the ground of delay and papers thereof were returned by the Superintendent of Stamps to the Deputy Collector. The petitioner has made further prayer for a direction to draw statement of the case to be referred to respondent No.2 under the provisions of Section 32 B of the Act, even as that provision is deleted with effect from 1st April 2007.

(3.) The facts of the case and approach of the Government clearly show a pathetic state of affairs in which even the officers of very high rank, dealing in public revenue directly affecting the public exchequer, choose to remain ignorant and indolent and make orders without minimal application of mind. The simple facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased a plot of land on 29-6-2000 for the stated consideration of Rs.4,90,000/- and the Deed of Transfer was registered at No.3056 with the office of Sub-registrar, Gandhidham, Kachchh. Respondent no.2 herein issued notice under Rule 4 (2) of the Bombay Stamp (Determination of Market Price) Rules, 1984 on 21st December 2000 and thereafter, an order under Section 32 A of the Act to deposit deficit amount of duty amounting to Rs.3,59,086/- was made. That order is stated to have been served personally upon the petitioner on 24th April 2002 and time granted therein to pay was 90 days.