# M/S Yogendra Kumar, Mathura v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 509 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2020-09-07 - **Case number:** WRIT - C No. 13395 of 2020 - **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-yogendra-kumar-mathura-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45989 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote A. Civil Law - Stamp Act,1899 - Article 57(b) Schedule 1B-tender of petitioner accepted-respondent issued a letter of acceptance with a clause that total security along with stamp duty should be deposited within 10 days-petitioner wrote to respondent to pay stamp duty as per Article 57(b) Schedule 1 B of the Stamp Act-no work order was passed for a period of 8 months-securtiy deposit in question treating as 'mortgage deed' the respondents can charge stamp duty on such securities as per Article 57(b) Schedule 1 B of the Stamp Act.(Para 1 to 9) (E-6) List of Cases cited:- ## Text 9 All. M/S Yogendra Kumar, Mathura Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 509 1953. In the case of Ram Chand and 8 others (supra) the question of maintainability of the writ petition was not raised and the court simply granted liberty to approach Cane Commissioner for recovery of dues. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anand Agro Chemical India Ltd. (supra) was also not brought to the notice of the Court. The writ petition in the case of Swami Nath and 24 others (supra) was disposed off with the consent of learned counsels for the parties. Thus, the judgments relied by learned counsel for the respondent No.5 are of no help to the respondent No.5. 35. For all the reasons aforestated, all the writ petitions are allowed with the direction to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to ensure that the Collector concerned shall recover the amount of recovery certificate dated 07.09.2020, in accordance with law, within two months from today after adjusting the amount, if any paid by the respondent No.5. The District Magistrate, Basti, may also take action against the Directors and occupiers of the respondent No.5 including their arrest to recover the dues, as was also directed by this Court and affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anand Agro Chemical India Ltd. (supra). 36. The concerned authority/official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of this order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad and shall act accordingly without waiting for submission of a certified copy of this order. ---------- (2020)09ILR A509 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.09.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. WRIT - C No. 13395 of 2020 M/S Yogendra Kumar, Mathura ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ramawtar Rao, Sri Mahabir Yadav Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. A. Civil Law - Stamp Act,1899 - Article 57(b) Schedule 1B-tender of petitioner accepted-respondent issued a letter of acceptance with a clause that total security along with stamp duty should be deposited within 10 days-petitioner wrote to respondent to pay stamp duty as per Article 57(b) Schedule 1 B of the Stamp Act-no work order was passed for a period of 8 months-securtiy deposit in question treating as 'mortgage deed' the respondents can charge stamp duty on such securities as per Article 57(b) Schedule 1 B of the Stamp Act.(Para 1 to 9) (E-6) List of Cases cited:- 1. M/s Strong Construction Vs St. of U.P. & ors., W.P. No. 35096 of 2004 2. M/s Kishan Traders Vs St. of U.P. & 2 ors., W.P.No. 52385 of 2015 (Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The skeletal facts are that a tender was invited by the respondents to repair different roads in District Mathura. The 510 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES amount of the said work is not mentioned deliberately to avoid complications. The tender of the petitioner was accepted. The respondent issued a letter of acceptance with a clause that total security along with stamp duty should be deposited within ten days. The petitioner wrote to the respondents that he is supposed to pay stamp duty as per Article 57 (b) Schedule 1 B of the Stamp Act and for a period of eight months, no work order was passed. 3. It is in these circumstances, that the matter assume importance as such the demand would have been made by the Executive Engineers of each District as this issue had arisen before this Court before one and a half decades but it appears that the authorities concerned have not shown that the said decision is binding on them as a similar issue came before this Court before three years and the judgment was struck down as it was beyond the jurisdiction of the authorities to demand the stamp duty beyond Article 57 (b) Schedule 1 B of the Stamp Act. 4. With these factual data, this writ petition is taken up for disposal today as it is covered by the decision of this Court and further waste of time during this pandemic of COVID 19 would cause loss to the public and Exchequer. 5. Despite the decisions of this Court way back in the year 2005 in the case of M/s Strong Construction vs. State of U.P. and others (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.35096 of 2004) decided on 22.3.2005 by the Division Bench of this Court and the recent oral order of this Court in Writ C No.52385 of 2015 (M/s Kishan Traders Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) dated 18.7.2017, it appears that the authorities have demanded from the petitioner what is known as stamp duty. 6. It is not the question whether the amount is only Rs.16,670/-. It will have lot of further repercussions as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as letter of acceptance was subjective. 7. Though the petition is belated, this Court has not been made aware whether the contract has already been executed or not. No such averments are made and for 9 months what is the progress is not known. 8. As far as demand of stamp duty is concerned, it is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of M/s Kishan Traders (Supra). The High Court in Case of M/s Strong Construction (Supra) had issued a writ of mandamus way back in the year 2005 which read as follows : "We also issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to compel the Petitioners and similarly situate persons, whether they have filed writ petition or not, to pay Stamp Duty on security deposit in question treating as 'mortgage deed' and further to charge Stamp Duty on such 'securities' as provided under Article 57 (b) Schedule 1 B of the Stamp Act." 9. In that view of the matter, the order demanding stamp duty is quashed. The petitioner would be liable to pay the stamp duty as per Article 57 (b) Schedule 1 B of the Stamp Act. The petitioner shall be substituted by subsequent demand which shall be raised. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, P.W.D., U.P. who shall issue a circular to the said effect so that persons do not have to approach the Court. ---------- 9 All. Smt. Tripti Rani Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 511 (2020)09ILR A511 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.09.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT GUPTA, J. THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. WRIT - C No. 13665 of 2020 Smt. Tripti Rani ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Atiqur Rahman Siddiqui, Sri Rakesh Pande, Vishakha Pande Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Sri D.C. Mathur Counsel for the Caveator: Sri Kharag Singh, Sri Brij Kumar Saroj (A) Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 - Section 15 - motion of non-confidence - Disaster Management Act -Democracy - system of government in which a country's political leaders are chosen by the people in regular, free, and fair elections - people have a choice between different candidates and parties who want the power to govern - people are sovereign - highest authority and government is based on the will of the people - Elected representatives at the national and local levels must listen to the people and be responsive to their needs - voters have right to elect their representatives and also criticize and replace them if they do not perform well. (Para - 11) Petitioner is the Pramukh of the Kotwali Kshetra Panchayat - assumed charge of Pramukh on 29.07.2019 - no confidence motion, as per section 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 - District Magistrate issued a notice dated 21.08.2020 convening a meeting for consideration of the motion of no confidence on 15.09.2020. (Para1,2) HELD:- Under no circumstance can the will of the people be permitted to be frustrated. In a democratic set up where right to govern depends on the will of the people, the person who has lost the majority cannot be permitted to hold office. If a representative no longer enjoys the confidence of the people, elected representatives have a right to remove him and he cannot be permitted to remain in power even for a second and has to be immediately replaced by a newly elected representative. (Para - 12) Petition dismissed. (E-7) (Delivered by Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J. & Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following reliefs; i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order/notice dated 21.08.2020 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) passed by Collector, Bijnor. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to initiate appropriate against the District Magistrate/Collector, Bijnor for violation of mandatory instructions issued under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. 2. The petitioner is the Pramukh of the Kotwali Kshetra Panchayat, Bijnor. The petitioner assumed the charge of Pramukh on 29.07.2019. On 21.08.2020, a no confidence motion, as per section 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act of 1961'), was made in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Act of 1961.