# All U.P. Stamp Vendors Association v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 2 ILRA 220
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-02-10
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 11738 of 2020
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/all-u-p-stamp-vendors-association-v-union-of-india-ors-46735
- **Pages:** 38

## Headnote

A. Uttar Pradesh e-Stamping Rules 2013,
Rule 12, 13 - Appointment of Authorized
Collection Center - Constitution of India,
Art. 226 - locus standi - challenge to
proposed
contract
-
Association
of
licenced
stamp
vendors
challenged
agreement
executed
by
the
State
Government
with
the
stock
holding
corporation of India for the appointment
of authorised collection centers under the
E - Stamp Rules - Held - Petitioners are
still not Authorised Collection Centre, as
such they have no right to dictate the
terms of contract & have no locus standi
to challenge the proposed contract under
Article 226 - It is wholly within stamp
vendors choice to apply for appointment
as "Authorised Collection Centre" and
enter
into
contract,
if
they
find
it
beneficial to them - They have no
fundamental or legal right to trade in EStamp. (Para 20)

B. Constitution of India , Art. 226 - Writ of
mandamus - Sale of E stamp - stamp duty
being a tax and sale of physical stamp or
2 All. All U.P. Stamp Vendors Association Vs. Union of India & Ors.
221
E-stamp for collection of revenue being
policy decision of the Government in fiscal
matter, no mandamus under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India can be issued to
the
Government
at
the
instance
of
petitioner (licenced stamp vendors) to
print
physical
stamp
when
the
Government has taken a policy decision
backed by statutory provision for E-stamp
- a writ lies when any fundamental or
legal rights are infringed - petitioners
failed to demonstrate that any of their
fundamental rights are infringed or that
they have any legally protected and
judicially enforceable subsisting right to
ask for mandamus or that action of the
State
suffers
from
patent
lack
of
jurisdiction. (Para 26, 26)

C. Constitution of India - Fundamental
Rights Article 19(1)(g), Article 21, Article
38
-
lower
rate
of
commission
&
apprehension of lower income does not
infringes
fundamental
right
-
Apprehension of lower income than the
desired income as an agent under E stamp
rules does not attract Article 21 of the
Constitution. (Para 33)

D. Constitution of India, Art. 226 -
Pleadings - If the facts are not pleaded or
the evidence in support of such facts not
annexed to the writ petition or to the
counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the
Court will not entertain the point. (Para 20)

E. The Uttar Pradesh e-Stamping Rules
2013
-U.P.
Stamp
Rules
1942
-
commission on sale of E- Stamp as per the
U.P. Stamp Rules 1942-petitioners are
licenced
stamp
vendors
for
sale
of
physical stamp governed by U.P. Rules
1942 - they cannot claim same discount as
provided in the Rules 1942 for sale of eStamp which is entirely a different
scheme - Court under Article 226 cannot
direct the to pay commission/service
charge/fee as may be demanded by the
petitioners in contrast to the mutually
agreed amount under Rule 12 of the Estamp Rules. (Para 30,31)

F. E-Stamp sale is a policy decision of the
Government for collection of stamp duty -
licenced stamp vendors cannot dictate the
Government for collection of stamp duty
in the manner as per their desire -
mandamus not to discontinue printing of
judicial and non-judicial stamp in physical
form. (Para 24)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited:-

1.Bharat Singh Vs St. of Har. (1988) 4 SCC 534

2.Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs Dilip Construction Co.
(1969) 1 SCC 597

## Text

_Characters 0–39,858 of 126,155. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39858 for what follows._

220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Present petition is devoid of merits and is
accordingly dismissed.

21. Having considered the facts and
circumstances of the case, subject to filing of an
undertaking by the petitioner-tenant before the
Court below, it is provided that:

(1)
The
tenant-petitioner
shall
handover the peaceful possession of the
premises in question to the landlord-opposite
party on or before 31.7.2021;

(2) The tenant-petitioner shall file the
undertaking before the Court below to the said
effect within two weeks from the date of receipt
of a self verified copy of this order;

(3) The tenant-petitioner shall pay
entire decretal amount, if any, within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order.

(4) The tenant-petitioner shall pay
damages @ Rs. 4,000/- per month by 07th day
of every succeeding month and continue to
deposit the same in the Court below till
31.7.2021 or till the date he vacates the
premises, whichever is earlier and the landlord
is at liberty to withdraw the said amount;

(5) In the undertaking the tenantpetitioner shall also state that he will not create
any interest in favour of the third party in the
premises in dispute;

(6) Subject to filing of the said
undertaking, the tenant-petitioner shall not be
evicted from the premises in question till the
aforesaid period;

(7) It is made clear that in case of
default of any of the conditions mentioned
herein-above, the protection granted by this
Court shall stand vacated automatically.

(8) In case, the premises is not
vacated as per the undertaking given by the
petitioner, he shall also be liable for contempt.

22. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2021)02ILR A220
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ C No. 11738 of 2020

All U.P. Stamp Vendors Association
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vishesh Rajvanshi, Sri Rajkishore Singh,
Sri N.C. Rajvanshi

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
C.S.C., Sri Sumit Kakkar

A. Uttar Pradesh e-Stamping Rules 2013,
Rule 12, 13 - Appointment of Authorized
Collection Center - Constitution of India,
Art. 226 - locus standi - challenge to
proposed
contract
-
Association
of
licenced
stamp
vendors
challenged
agreement
executed
by
the
State
Government
with
the
stock
holding
corporation of India for the appointment
of authorised collection centers under the
E - Stamp Rules - Held - Petitioners are
still not Authorised Collection Centre, as
such they have no right to dictate the
terms of contract & have no locus standi
to challenge the proposed contract under
Article 226 - It is wholly within stamp
vendors choice to apply for appointment
as "Authorised Collection Centre" and
enter
into
contract,
if
they
find
it
beneficial to them - They have no
fundamental or legal right to trade in EStamp. (Para 20)

B. Constitution of India , Art. 226 - Writ of
mandamus - Sale of E stamp - stamp duty
being a tax and sale of physical stamp or
2 All. All U.P. Stamp Vendors Association Vs. Union of India & Ors.
221
E-stamp for collection of revenue being
policy decision of the Government in fiscal
matter, no mandamus under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India can be issued to
the
Government
at
the
instance
of
petitioner (licenced stamp vendors) to
print
physical
stamp
when
the
Government has taken a policy decision
backed by statutory provision for E-stamp
- a writ lies when any fundamental or
legal rights are infringed - petitioners
failed to demonstrate that any of their
fundamental rights are infringed or that
they have any legally protected and
judicially enforceable subsisting right to
ask for mandamus or that action of the
State
suffers
from
patent
lack
of
jurisdiction. (Para 26, 26)

C. Constitution of India - Fundamental
Rights Article 19(1)(g), Article 21, Article
38
-
lower
rate
of
commission
&
apprehension of lower income does not
infringes
fundamental
right
-
Apprehension of lower income than the
desired income as an agent under E stamp
rules does not attract Article 21 of the
Constitution. (Para 33)

D. Constitution of India, Art. 226 -
Pleadings - If the facts are not pleaded or
the evidence in support of such facts not
annexed to the writ petition or to the
counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the
Court will not entertain the point. (Para 20)

E. The Uttar Pradesh e-Stamping Rules
2013
-U.P.
Stamp
Rules
1942
-
commission on sale of E- Stamp as per the
U.P. Stamp Rules 1942-petitioners are
licenced
stamp
vendors
for
sale
of
physical stamp governed by U.P. Rules
1942 - they cannot claim same discount as
provided in the Rules 1942 for sale of eStamp which is entirely a different
scheme - Court under Article 226 cannot
direct the to pay commission/service
charge/fee as may be demanded by the
petitioners in contrast to the mutually
agreed amount under Rule 12 of the Estamp Rules. (Para 30,31)

F. E-Stamp sale is a policy decision of the
Government for collection of stamp duty -
licenced stamp vendors cannot dictate the
Government for collection of stamp duty
in the manner as per their desire -
mandamus not to discontinue printing of
judicial and non-judicial stamp in physical
form. (Para 24)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited:-

1.Bharat Singh Vs St. of Har. (1988) 4 SCC 534

2.Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs Dilip Construction Co.
(1969) 1 SCC 597

3. St. of A.P. Vs P. Laxmi Devi (2008) 4 SCC 720

4. St. of M.P. Vs Rakesh Kolhi (2012) 6 SCC 312

5. St. of Guj. Vs Akhil Gujarat Pravasi V.S.
Mahamandal (2004) 5 SCC 155

6. R.K. Garg Vs U.O.I. 1981 (4) SCC 675

7. Director of Settlements Vs M.R. Apparao 2002
4 SCC 638

8. U.O.I. Vs Upendra Singh 1994 (3) SCC 357

9. S Govind Menon Vs U.O.I. AIR 1967 SC 1274

10. U.O.I. Vs Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & ors.
C.A. No.6898 of 2002 dt 05.05.2008 S.C.

11. Minakshi Yadav Vs St. of M.P. & ors. Writ
Petition No.13723 of 2019 dt 24.07.2019 M.P.
H.C.

12. Ripu Daman Singh Yadav Vs St. of M.P. &
ors. W.A. No.1141 of 2019 dt. 16.07.2019 M.P.
H.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Judicial
Review - The Uttar Pradesh e-Stamping
Rules 2013 - Central Record-keeping
Agency and Authorized Collection Centre,
discharge public functions. Consequently,
their
actions
including
the
proposed
agreement can be judicially reviewed, and
222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the same are accountable to public law.
(Para 25)

Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(g) -
phrases
"practise
any
profession"
or
"carry
on
any
occupation,
trade
or
business" - Only those activities which are
"res extra commercium" are excluded
from the scope of Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India. (Para 44)

Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Aggrieved
Person - locus standi - A party cannot be
left without remedy in law when it faces
threatened injury and loss is imminent, on
the foot that it should approach the court
after irreversible damage has been done.
The petitioner is an aggrieved party, and
has the locus standi to file this writ
petition. (Para 51)

List of cases cited: -

1. D. A. V. College Bathinda, Etc Vs St. of Pun.
1971 (2) SCC 261

2. Roop Chand Vs St. of Pun., AIR 1963 SC
1503

3. Peerless General Finance & Investment Co.
Ltd. Vs R.B.I. 1992 (2) SCC 343

4. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs Saw
Pipes Ltd. 2003 (5) SCC 705

5. Mahabir Auto Stores & ors. Vs Indian Oil
Corporation AIR 1990 SC 1031

6. Udai Singh Dagar & ors. Vs U.O.I. 2007 (10)
SCC 306

7. Zee Telefilms Ltd. & anr. Vs U.O.I. 2005 (4)
SCC 649
(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J. & Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.)

1. Heard Sri N.C. Rajvanshi, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vishesh
Rajvanshi,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners, Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned
Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State
respondents and Sri Sumit Kakkar, learned
counsel for the respondent No.4. Learned
counsel for the parties were heard at
length on 06.08.2020 and 07.08.2020.
Orders dated 06.08.2020 and 07.08.2020
were
passed
incorporating
their
arguments. The judgment was reserved on
07.08.2020.

2. This writ petition has been filed
praying for the following relief:-

"(1) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the agreement issued by the
respondent no. 4 for the appointment of
authorised collection centers which has
been marked as Annexure no. 4 to this writ
petition.

(2) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent no. 4 to reconsider
the agreement under challenge and to
disclose the commission earned by the
respondent no. 4 by the State Government.

(3) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned Circular dated
17.01.2020 marked as Annexure no. 5 to
this writ petition.

(4) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents nos. 2 and 3 not
to discontinue the printing of physical
judicial and non judicial stamps.

(5) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned letter/order dated
25.02.2020 issued by the respondent no. 3,
which has been marked as Annexure no. 7
to this writ petition.

(6) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents nos. 2 and 3 to
2 All. All U.P. Stamp Vendors Association Vs. Union of India & Ors.
223
reconsider the claim of the petitioner as per
Annexure no. 6 to this writ petition.

(7) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
whereby directing the respondents nos. 2
and 3 to fix the commission of the
petitioner's members as per Rule 161 of the
Rules, 1942."

Facts

3. Petitioners claim themselves to be
an association of licenced stamp vendors to
sell stamps in physical form under licences
granted under chapter IV of the U.P. Stamp
Rules 1942 (hereinafter referred to as "the
U.P. Rules 1942"). They have no licence or
authority to sell E-stamp.

4. Section 10 of the Indian Stamp Act
1899 (hereinafter referred to as "the Stamp
Act") provides the method of payment of
stamp duty in respect of instruments
chargeable under the Stamp Act. Clause (b)
of sub Section 1 of Section 10 of the Act
empowers the State Government to make
rules for payment of stamp duty. Section 74
of the Act empowers the State Government
to make rules for regulating the supply and
sale of stamps and stamp papers, the person
by whom such sale is to be conducted and
the duties and remuneration and the fees
chargeable from such persons. Section 75
of the Stamp Act confers powers upon the
State Government to make rules to carry
out generally the purpose of the Stamp Act
and to prescribe the fines which shall in no
case exceed Rs.5000/-, to be incurred in
breach of the provisions of the Stamp Act.

5. Under the Rule 152 of the U.P.
Rules 1942, the licenced Stamp Vendors
under the U.P. Rules 1942 are authorised to
sell Court Fee Stamps and non judicial
stamps not exceeding the aggregate value
of Rs. 15,000/- to a person for one
document or instrument.

6. The Government of India has
appointed the respondent no. 4 (Stock
Holding Corporation of India) as "Central
Record Keeping Agency" (for short CRA)
for
computerization
of
Stamp
duty
Administration system. The respondent
No.4 is a Government of India Company in
which majority shares are held by the
Industrial Finance Corporation of India
Ltd. (IFCI) and the balance shares are held
by the Life Insurance Corporation of India,
United India Insurance Company, General
Insurance Corporation of India, National
India
Assurance
Company
Ltd.
and
National Insurance Company Ltd.

7. In exercise of powers conferred
under Sections 10, 74 and 75 of the Stamp
Act, the State Government framed "The
Uttar Pradesh e-Stamping Rules 2013
(hereinafter referred to as "e-Stamp Rules
2013").

8. The aforesaid E-Stamping Rules
2013, initially has not made eligible the
licenced stamp vendors to sell E-Stamp. By
the
Uttar
Pradesh
E-Stamping
(1st
amendment rules 2019) Rule 13 of the EStamp Rules 2013 has been amended,
whereby licenced Stamp Vendors under the
U.P. Rules 1942, possessing educational
qualification prescribed by the Stamp
Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh; have been
made
eligible
for
appointment
as
"Authorised Collection Centre" subject to
the prior approval of the appointing
authority under Rule 12 of the E-Stamp
Rules 2013. Now they may apply for
"Authorised
Collection
Centre"
for
appointment as an agent by the "Central
Record Keeping Agency", with the prior
approval of the State Government, to act as
224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
an intermediary between the "Central
Record Keeping Agency" and the stamp
duty payer for collection of stamp duty.

9. There is no averment in the writ
petition that the petitioners have applied or
have
been
appointed
as
"Authorised
Collection Centre" to act as an intermediary
between the "Central Record Keeping
Agency" and the stamp duty payer.

10. Briefly, on the above noted facts
and legal position the petitioners have filed
the present writ petition praying for the relief
as aforequoted.

Submissions
on
behalf
of
the
petitioners

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted as under:-

(i) The lowering of commission
under the Rules 2013 on sale of E-Stamp
papers, is violative under Article 19(1) (g) of
the Constitution of India inasmuch as the
lower rate of commission shall adversely
affect petitioners right to run business.

(ii) The scheme of the proposed
agreement framed by the respondent no. 4 for
being entered with the Authorised Service
Centre is violative of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, inasmuch as due to
lowering of commission the members of the
petitioners shall lose their right to live with
dignity as they shall have less income due to
lowering of commission on sell of E-stamp.

(iii) The Rules 2013 do not contain
any provision for commission on sale of Estamp, Therefore, the Uttar Pradesh Stamp
Rules, 1942 shall apply which provides for
one percent commission of physical sale of
stamp papers.

(iv) The State Government has
duty to secure and protect economic justice
and to minimise inequalities in income and
endeavour to eliminate inequalities in
status, facilities and opportunities. The
present action of the government would
amount
to
lowering
the
income
of
Authorised Collection Centre inasmuch as
petitioners
could
be
getting
higher
commission on sale of physical stamp upto
Rs.15,000/- whereas on sale of E-stamp,
they shall be getting a lower commission
irrespective of the amount. Thus, the
provisions of Article 38 of the Constitution
of India which are part of directive
principles of State Policy, shall stand
violated.

12. In support of his submissions,
learned senior advocate has relied upon a
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated
05.05.2008
in
Union
of
India
vs.
Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others
(Civil Appeal No.6898 of 2002) (Paras-44
and 45), a judgment dated 24.07.2019 of
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ
Petition No.13723 of 2019 (Minakshi
Yadav vs. State of M.P. and others) and
another judgment of Madhya Pradesh
High Court dated 16.07.2019 in W.A.
No.1141 of 2019 (Ripu Daman Singh
Yadav vs. State of M.P. and others).

Submissions
on
behalf
of
respondents

13. Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel
submitted as under:

(i) Under the E-Stamping Rules,
2013, the stamp vendors were not included
and were not authorised to sell E-stamp but
by the First Amendment Rules, 2019, the
stamp vendors have been included under
the E-stamping Rules, 2013 and thus, they
may take advantage of selling E-stamp.
2 All. All U.P. Stamp Vendors Association Vs. Union of India & Ors.
225
Therefore, by First Amendment Rules, a
benefit has been conferred upon stamp
vendors and they may get more business by
way of selling of E-Stamp.

(ii)
Presently,
the
State
Government has stock of physical stamp of
more than Rs.17,000 crores which as per
prevailing rate of consumption, shall take
more than two years to exhaust. Thus, the
petitioner's business cannot be said to be
adversely affected by sale of E-stamp.

(iii) The petitioners being stamp
vendors have the only right for enforcement
of their conditions of licence. They have no
right beyond the conditions of their licence
and the relevant provisions of the Act and
Rules.

(iv) The petitioners as stamp
vendors are governed by the U.P. Rules,
1942. By the E-stamping Rules, 2013 as
amended by the First Amendment Rules,
2019, they have been made eligible to sell Estamp. Therefore, for sale of physical stamp,
they shall be governed by the provisions of
U.P. Rules, 1942. In the event, they apply for
registration as Authorised Collection Centre
for sale of E-stamp, then they shall be
governed by the provisions of U.P. EStamping Rules, 2013.

(v) The Rules, 2013 do not infringe
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
The entire argument of the petitioners is
wholly without factual foundation.

(vi) The U.P. E-stamping Rules,
2013 and the proposed agreement framed by
the respondent No.4 are not violative of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India
inasmuch as it is wholly within the choice of
the petitioners either to apply for Authorised
Collection Centre or not. If they find it
beneficial for them, then they may apply and
get them registered as Authorised Collection
Centre.

(vii) The provisions of Article 38
of the Constitution of India have no
application in the present facts and
circumstances of the case. Article 38 is in
Part-IV of the Constitution of India, which
is directive principle of State Policy. It is
mere apprehension of the petitioners that
they may get lower commission if they
apply for Authorised Collection Centre for
sale of E-Stamp. In any case, it does not
fall within the ambit of Article 38 of the
Constitution of India.

(viii) By the E-stamping Rules,
2013, the stamp vendors have been made
eligible to apply for Authorised Collection
Centre. None of the petitioners have yet
applied. Therefore, even no cause of action
arose to the petitioners to file the present
writ petition inasmuch as they are not even
Authorised Collection Centre under the
Rules, 2013.

14. Sri Sumit Kakkar, learned counsel
for the respondent No.4 has adopted the
submissions
made
by
the
learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

Discussion and findings

15. We have carefully considered the
submissions of learned counsels for the
parties.

16.

The
petitioners
have
not
challenged the validity of the e-Stamp
rules. They have merely challenged the
agreement
executed
by
the
State
Government
with
the
stock
holding
corporation of India limited (respondent no.
4), the letter of the Commissioner Stamp,
dated 17.01.2020 addressed to the Chief
Treasury Officer, Kanpur Nagar, returning
his indent for printing of Court Stamps,
until further orders and rejection of
petitioner's representation by the Stamp
Commissioner
received
under
Public
Grievance Cell. The petitioners have also
226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
prayed for writ of mandamus to the
respondent nos. 2 and 3 not to discontinue
printing of judicial and non judicial stamps
and to fix the commission of the petitioners
on E-Stamp sales as per Rule 161 of the
Rules 1942.

17. The provisions of the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899, the U.P. Stamp Rules
1942 and the U.P. E-Stamping Rules 2013,
which are relevant for the purposes of the
present
controversy,
are
reproduced
below:-

(a) The Indian Stamp Act 1899

Section 10. Duties how to be
paid.- (1) Except as otherwise expressly
provided in this Act, all duties with which
any instruments are chargeable shall be
paid, and such payment shall be indicated
on such instruments, by means of such
stamps,-

(a) according to the provisions
herein contained;or

(b) when no such provision is
applicable
thereto,
as
the
[State
Government] may by rules direct.

(2) The rules made under subsection (1) may, among other matters,
regulate,-

(a) in the case of each kind of
instrument - the description of stamps
which may be used;

(b) in the case of instruments
stamped with impressed stamps - the
number of stamps which may be used;

(c) in the case of bills of
exchange or promissory notes written in
any Oriental language - the size of the
paper on which they are written.

Section 74. Power to make rules
relating to sale of stamps. -

The State Government may make
rules for regulating,-

(a) the supply and sale of stamps
an stamped papers;

 (b) the persons by whom alone
such sale is to be conducted;

(c) the duties and remuneration
of and the fees chargeable from such
person.

Provided that such rules shall not
restrict the sale of ten paise or five paise
adhesive stamps.

Section 75 Powers to make rules
generally to carry out Act.

The State Government may make
rules to carry out generally the purposes of
this Act, and may, by such rules, prescribe
the fines, which shall in no case exceed five
hundred rupees, to be incurred on breach
thereof.

(b) The Uttar Pradesh Stamp
Rules, 1942

Section 150. Only authorised
persons to sell stamps : Exceptions.- No
person, who is not duly authorized in the
manner hereinafter provided, shall be
entitled to sell stamps of any description
other than ten naye paise revenue stamps.
This prohibition shall not apply-

(i) to a legal practitioner or a
banker, who buys a stock of stamps for uses
in his own business, and affixes them, when
occasion requires, to the document he has
to draw up in the course of that business,
the cost of the stamps being recovered from
his client or customer with the rest of his
charges:

Provided that every court-fee
label affixed by a legal practitioner to a
document shall be enfaced by him in the
name of the client on whose behalf the
document is presented to the court. A label
once so enfaced shall not be enfaced a
second time.

(ii) to Government offices or
Incorporated Companies or other body
corporate in respect of stamped paper used
2 All. All U.P. Stamp Vendors Association Vs. Union of India & Ors.
227
for printed forms of instruments for use by
the persons concerned with the business of
that office, company or body, the cost of the
stamp being recovered from those persons.

151. Classes of vendors.- There
shall be two classes of vendors, namely-(a)
ex officio vendors, and (b) licensed
vendors.

(a) The following persons shall
be deemed to be ex officio vendors:

(i) the treasurer of each district
with his salaried assistant or the agent of
the treasurer approved on his behalf by the
Collector. When the treasurer's approved
agent is appointed as ex officio vendor, the
treasurer shall remain in every respect
responsible as surety for the said agent;

(ii) the Tahsildar of each Tahsil;

(iii)any salaried vendor who may
be appointed by the Provincial Government
;

(iv)the officer-in-charge of every
Post Office at which letters are received for
despatch (for the sale of adhesive revenue
stamps of ten naye paise denomination
only).

(b) The Collector may grant a
license for vend to any of the following
persons, namely:

(i) lambardars of village;

(ii) bakshis in towns under the
provisions of the United Provinces Town
Areas Act, 1914 (ll of 1914);

(iii) pound- keepers;

(iv) kurk amins;

(v) Postmasters at places other
than the headquarters of the district or a
tehsil;

(vi) village school masters;

(vii) the Nazir, head copyist or
other responsible official attached to a
Civil, Criminal or Revenue court at which
no salaried vendor has been appointed and
where there is no other liscensed vendor;

(viii) an official on the staff of
Presiding Officer of a Court in camp;

(ix) patwaris in the districts of
Almora, Naini Tal and Garhwal; and

(x) any other persons deemed by
the collector to be a fit and proper person
for the sale of the stamps :

Approval
to
appointment
required in certain cases- Provided that in
the case of the appointment of postmasters
and school masters the previous approval
of the "Postmaster - General" and the
"Chairman of the Education Committee of
the District Board" respectively shall be
obtained.

151-A. Period of license and fee
.- (1) Liscense for vend of stamps shall be
granted for a financial year.

(2) A license granted during the
course of the financial year shall be
terminated on March 31, next following.

(3)The Collector may on a
written application of the licensed vendor
to that effect, moved within a period of one
month prior to the date on which the
license expires, renew the license for the
succeeding financial year :

Provided that if the application
for renewal of license is moved and the
renewal is not granted till the expiry of the
period of license, the license granted shall
remain valid till the same is renewed or
renewal is refused.

(4) A license fee of one hundred
rupees for every financial year for which
the license is granted or renewed shall be
paid to the government through the
Collector concerned :

Provided that if a new license is
applied for, during a financial year, the
licence fee for the remainder period of that
financial year shall be calculated at the
rate of twenty five rupees for each quarter
or a part of a quarter.
228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(5) If a license is lost, destroyed,
defaced, torn or becomes illegible, licensed
vendor shall forthwith apply to the
Collector for grant of a duplicate license.
The Collector may, on being satisfied that
the issue of duplicate license is justified,
issue a duplicate license on payment of
twenty-five rupees. Every such duplicate
license shall be stamped "DUPLICATE".

151-B. License for more than
one financial year .- Notwithstanding
anything contained in Rule 151-A, a license
for vend of stamps may be granted for a
period of five financial years on payment
of a lump sum license fee of two hundred
and fifty rupees.

152. Sale of stamps by licensed
vendors and restrictions therefor.- (a)
Licensed vendors shall be allowed to sell
court fee stamps or non-judicial stamps not
exceeding the aggregate value of fifteen
thousand rupees for one document or
instrument, as the case may be, and to an
individual member of the public.

(b) Any person aggrieved by an
order of the Collector under clause (a) may,
within thirty days thereof prefer an appeal to
the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh,
Allahabad or any officer authorised by the
Board in this behalf, whose decision thereon
shall be final and conclusive.

157. Method of supply of stamps
to licensed vendor.- Licensed vendors shall
obtain stamps from ex officio vendors at local
and branch depots on payment of ready
money
(less
the
discount
hereinafter
prescribed):

Provided that persons in the
service of the Crown licensed under Rule 151
(b) may obtain stamps as an advance, without
payment, in accordance with rule 158.

161. Discount.- Every licensed
vendor who purchases non- judicial, courtfee or copy stamps from the Government
treasury by payment of ready money shall
receive the same at a discount of Rs. 1.00
per cent of the face value of the stamps.

If
the
discount
permissible
contains a fraction of a rupee, any such
fraction, in excess of the nearest lower
multiple of five paise shall be ignored :

Provided that no discount shall
be allowed :

(a) on any stamps supplied on
any material furnished by the purchaser
himself;

(b) unless stamps of an aggregate
value of not less than Rs.5 are purchased at
one time;

(c) on the fraction of only one
rupee; and

(d) on account of purchase of
adhesive revenue stamps.

167. Stamps to be delivered on
demand by Collector.- Every licensed
vendor shall, at anytime, on the demand of
the Collector deliver all stamps, or any
class
of
stamps,
remaining
in
his
possession together with his registers.

(c) The Uttar Pradesh EStamping Rules 2013

2.
Definitions-
(1)
(b)
"Agreement"
means
the
agreement
executed between the Appointing Authority
and the Central Record-keeping Agency
describing the terms and conditions of
appointment
of
the
Central
Record-
keeping Agency;

(d) "Approved Intermediaries"
means the Central Record - keeping
Agency and the Authorised Collection
Centres including all its offices and
branches as appointed with the prior
approval of the Government to act as an
intermediary between the Government and
the Stamp duty payer for the collection of
Stamp duty under these rules ;

(e)
"Authorised
Collection
Centre" means an agent appointed by the
Central Record-keeping Agency, with the
2 All. All U.P. Stamp Vendors Association Vs. Union of India & Ors.
229
prior approval of the Government, to act as
an intermediary between the Central
Record-keeping Agency and the Stamp
duty payer for collection of stamp duty;

(f)
"Central
Record-keeping
Agency" means an agency appointed by
the
appointing
authority
for
computerization
of
Stamp
Duty
Administration System in the State or at
such places as the Government may
determine from time to time;

(i)
"E-Stamp"
means
an
electronically generated impression on
paper to denote the payment of Stamp
duty;

3.
Eligibility
criteria
for
appointment of Central Record-Keeping
Agency- Any public Financial Institution,
Indian Scheduled Bank or a Company
engaged in providing depository services
appointed by Central Government, a
company recognized by the Government
either individually or in consortium may
be eligible for appointment as Central
Record-keeping Agency.

4.Appointment
of
Central
Record Keeping Agency - The appointing
Authority shall select and appoint by
notification a suitable agency to function
as Central Record -keeping Agency for
the
State
to
implement
the
Computerisation
of
Stamp
Duty
Administration System in specified places
of the State as declared by him from time
to time, in order of as mentioned below-

(a)
on
the
basis
of
recommendations, if any, of the Central
Government regarding appointment of
Central Record-Keeping Agency, issued
from time to time;

(b) by inviting technical and
commercial
bids
through
a
duly
constituted expert Selection Committee.

5.Term of appointment- The
term of the Central Record-keeping
Agency appointed under the rules shall
be five years.

6. Central record-keeping Agency
to execute Agreement and Undertaking and
Indemnity Bond- (1) The appointment of the
Central Record-keeping Agency shall be on
the contract basis and the agency shall enter
into an Agreement in Form-1 with the
Appointing Authority or the Government.

(2) The Central Record-keeping
Agency shall along with the agreement
referred to in sub-rule (1) execute an
Undertaking & indemnity Bond in the Form2, in favour of the Appointing Authority or in
any other form as may be determined by the
Government from time to time.

9. Duties of Central Recordkeeping Agency-(1) The Central Recordkeeping Agency shall be responsible for-

(a)
creating
need
based
infrastructure, hardware and software in
designated places in consultation with the
Appointing Authority and its connectivity
with its main server;

(b) creating need based software in
the offices of Registering Officers, and
Supervisory and Controlling Officers, of the
department and at authorised Collection
centres, the point of contact for payment of
Stamp duty, within the State or at such places
as may be specified from time to time by the
appointing authority;

(c)
providing
suitable
and
adequate training for operation and the use
of the system to the personnel of the
department as may be specified from time to
time by the Appointing Authority;

(d) facilitating in selection of
authorized collection centres for collection of
stamp duty and issuing E-stamp certificates;

(e) co-ordinating between the
central server of Central Record-keeping
Agency
Authorized
collection
centres
(banks, etc.) and the offices of the
Registering
Officers,
and
Supervisory
230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Controlling Officers of the Department or
any other office or places as may be
specified by the Appointing Authority;

(f) collecting stamp duty and
remitting it to the Head of Account of the
state in accordance with these rules and as
directed from time to time by the
Government as the case may be;

(g) preparing and providing
various reports as required under these
rules and as required by the Commissioner
of Stamps from time to time.

(2) (a) The Central Recordkeeping Agency shall not provide, transfer
or share any hardware; software or any
other technology or details in respect of the
E-stamping project undertaken by it in the
State
to
anybody
without
written
permission of the Appointing Authority
other than the duly appointed Authorized
Collection Centers.

(b)
Deploy
the
E-stamping
application software after getting the
security audit conducted by the agency
empowered by the Government. The
security audit shall also be required
whenever there is any change in the Estamping
application
software's
subsequently.
(c) Maintain the logs of
all the activities on the server dedicated for
E-stamping under guidelines of Indian
Computer Emergency Response Team
"CERT in" on regular basis.

10. Commission allowable to the
Central Record-keeping Agency - (1) The
Central Record-keeping Agency shall be
entitled to such agreed percentage of
Commission on the amount of Stamp duty
collected by Approved Intermediaries. The
rate of Commission shall be notified by the
Government in the Gazette.

(2) The Commission to the
Central Record-keeping Agency shall be
subject to the condition of rule - 20
hereunder mentioned.

12. Appointment of Authorized
Collection Center - The Central Record
keeping Agency may appoint agent(s),
herein after called Authorized Collection
Centers, with prior approval of the
Appointing Authority; to act as an
intermediary between the Central Recordkeeping Agency and the stamp duty payer
for collection of stamp duty. The service
changes, commission or fee etc. payable to
Authorized Collection Centers shall be
paid by the Central Record-keeping
Agency at their own level as mutually
agree between them.

13. Unamended Rule

Eligibility
criteria
for
appointment of Authorized Collection
Center-

Any
Scheduled
Bank,
any
Financial
Institution
or
undertaking
controlled by the Reserve Bank of India or
the Financial Institution or undertaking
controlled by the Government, or a Post
Office will be eligible for appointment as
Authorized Collection Center, subject to
prior approval of the Appointing Authority
under rule 12.

13. Substituted Rule by Ist
Amendment Rule 2019

Eligibility
criteria
for
appointment of Authorized Collection
Center-

Any
Scheduled
Bank,
any
Financial
Institution
or
undertaking
controlled by the Reserve Bank of India or
the Financial Institution or undertaking
controlled by the Government, or a Post
Office or a stamp vendor having license
under Uttar Pradesh Stamp Rules, 1942,
and Possessing educational qualifications
prescribed by the Stamp Commissioner,
Uttar
Pradesh
will
be
eligible
for
appointment as
Authorized
Collection
Center, subject to the prior approval of the
Appointing Authority under rule 12.
2 All. All U.P. Stamp Vendors Association Vs. Union of India & Ors.
231

Whether proposed Agreement of
"Authorised Collection Centre" can be
quashed or interfered at the instance of
the Petitioners:

18. By notification F No. 16/1/ 2004 -
CY. 1. Government of India Ministry of
Finance Department of Economic Affairs
(C & C, Division) New Delhi, dated
28.12.2005, the Stock Holding Corporation
of India Limited (for short SHCIL) was
selected and authorised to act as Central
Record
Keeping
Agency
(CRA)
for
Computerization
of
Stamp
Duty
Administration System (CSDAS). This was
an step towards sale of E-Stamp. The Uttar
Pradesh Government by Notification No.
473/K.N./11-7/2013-500(97)/2008,
Lucknow, dated 28.05.2013, appointed the
respondent no.4 i.e. M/s. Stock Holding
Corporation of India limited as the Central
Record Keeping Agency under Rule 4 of
the E-stamp Rules, to implement the
computerization
of
Stamp
Duty
Administration System in the State. Thus,
the appointment of the respondent no. 4 has
been made by the State Government under
Rule 4 of the E-Stamp Rules to act as the
Central Record Keeping Agency. Under
Rule 6 of the E-Stamp Rules the
appointment of the respondent No. 4 is on
contract basis and the respondent no.4 has
entered into agreement with the Appointing
Authority/the Government in terms of Rule
6 in prescribed form I.

19. Initially, under Rule 13 of the E -
Stamp Rules 2013, six category of persons
were eligible to apply for appointment as
"Authorised
Collection
Centre.
Subsequently by 1st Amendment Rules
2019 (Notified on 15.11.2019) Rule 13
was
amended
by
including
Stamp
Vendors having lisence under the Uttar
Pradesh Stamp Rules 1947. Thus, Stamp
Vendors having lisence under the Uttar
Pradesh Stamp Rules, 1942 became eligible
for appointment as "Authorised Collection
Centre" under the E - Stamp Rules 2013
from 15.11.2019. Out of seven categories
of persons eligible for appointment as
"Authorised Collection Centre" under
Rule 13 of the E - Stamp Rules 13, only
the petitioners i.e. Stamp Vendors
having lisence under the Uttar Pradesh
Stamp Rules 1942, have filed the present
writ petition for Commission as per
Uttar Pradesh Rules 1942 for Collection
of Stamp duty as intermediary on eStamp under the E - Stamp Rules, 2013.

20. There is no averment in the writ
petition that members of the petitioner's
Association have applied for appointment
as "Authorise Collection Centre" under the
E - Stamp Rules, 2013. The allegation of
bank charges and expenses are also not
supported by any evidence. It has been well
settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Bharat Singh Vs. State of Haryana
(1988) 4 SCC 534 (Para 13) that "If the
facts are not pleaded or the evidence in
support of such facts is not annexed to
the writ petition or to the counteraffidavit, as the case may be, the Court
will not entertain the point." The
petitioners are still not Authorised
Collection Centre. They have no right to
dictate the terms of contract. It is wholly
within
their
choice
to
apply
for
appointment as "Authorised Collection
Centre" and enter into contract under
Rule 12 to act as an intermediary
between the Central Record Keeping
Agency and the Stamp duty payer for
collection of stamp duty, if they find it
beneficial to them. They have no
fundamental or legal right to trade in EStamp or to act an intermediary for
collection of stamp duty which is a tax
232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and is within the exclusive domain of the
Government. They have no locus standi to
challenge the proposed contract under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Besides above, as per clause (vii) of the
proposed agreement, the "Authorised
Collection Centre" shall be entitled to
23% of the commission earned by the
respondent No.4 from the State of U.P.
for such e-stamps generated by the ACC
in Uttar Pradesh which is neither
unreasonable looking into the duties of
the respondent No.4 specified under the
aforequoted Rule 9 nor it could be
demonstrated by the petitioners to be
unreasonable.

21. Therefore, for all the reasons
aforestated the relief nos.1 and 2 sought by
the petitioners deserves to be rejected and are
hereby rejected.

Regarding letter of the Addl. Chief
Secretary date 17.01.2020:

22. So far as the relief No.3 is
concerned, we find that it is a correspondence
between the Additional Chief Secretary,
Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj
and Chief Treasury Officer, Kanpur Nagar,
regarding stamps printing.