# Vijay Kumar Dixit v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 809
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-19
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 41735 of 2024
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vijay-kumar-dixit-v-union-of-india-ors-53241
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

(A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction
- Recovery of professional fees from
empanelled advocate based on internal
inquiry - Constitution of India - Article
226 - Principles of natural justice to be
followed when stigma is cast - Orders
demanding recovery of excess payment
without hearing and inquiry report held
stigmatic and violative of natural justice -
Internal financial investigation - Denial of
inquiry report - Absence of show cause -
Stigmatic action by State instrumentality
- Authority casting stigma must ensure
due process including copy of inquiry
report and opportunity of response.(Para -
3,6,7,8,9,11)

Petitioner, an empanelled advocate with FCI -
was served multiple orders demanding refund of
Rs.17,16,767/- as excess payment based on an
internal committee report - without being served
a copy of such report or given opportunity to
participate in the inquiry - recovery was being
sought by the client (F.C.I.) against the
Advocate (petitioner) by way of setting off
alleged excess payments against the payments
810 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that were due to be paid to the petitioner in
future. (Para - 2,3,6,10)

HELD: - Authorities had overstepped their limits
by passing the impugned orders, which were
definitely stigmatic in nature. Not only did the
orders put a stigma on the petitioner, but they
were also an attempt to deprive the petitioner
of valuable compensation for services offered by
him. The impugned orders could not be
sustained and were quashed and set aside.
Liberty was granted to f.C.I. to proceed de-novo
in accordance with law. (Para -8,11,12)

Writ petition disposed of. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

3 All. Vijay Kumar Dixit Vs. Union of India & Ors.
809
is held entitled to claim the refund
of stamp duty amount on the basis of the
fact that the appellant has been pursuing
her case as per remedies available to her in
law and she should not be denied the said
refund merely on technicalities as the case
of the appellant is a just one wherein she
had in bonafide paid the stamp duty for
registration but fraud was played on her by
the Vendor which led to the cancellation of
the conveyance deed."

8.

Counsel
on
behalf
of
respondents submits that the amended U.P.
Stamp Act would apply in the present case
as the petitioners' application for refund
was
made
subsequent
to
the
said
amendment.

9. Upon perusal of the averments
made, the documents annexed and after
going through the ratio of Supreme Court
in Harshit Harish Jain & Anr (supra), we
are of the view that in the present case the
impugned order rejecting the refund of the
petitioners is passed on technical reasons
only. From the facts, it is clear that the
agreement between the parties has taken
place prior to the amendment that has been
carried
in
the
stamp
papers,
and
accordingly, following the ratio of the
Supreme Court Judgment, it is crystal clear
that the benefit of refund of the stamp duty
would be applicable in the present case.

10. The impugned order does not
take into consideration the ratio of the
Supreme Court judgement. Accordingly,
the said order is quashed and set aside with
the direction upon the authority concerned
to
once
again
examine
the
refund
application of the petitioners keeping in
view the judgment of the Supreme Court
cited above within a period of three months
from date.
11. With the above observation,
the writ petition is disposed of.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 809
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Writ C No. 41735 of 2024

Vijay Kumar Dixit ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Manoj Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Nishant Mehrotra, Pranjal Mehrotra

(A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction
- Recovery of professional fees from
empanelled advocate based on internal
inquiry - Constitution of India - Article
226 - Principles of natural justice to be
followed when stigma is cast - Orders
demanding recovery of excess payment
without hearing and inquiry report held
stigmatic and violative of natural justice -
Internal financial investigation - Denial of
inquiry report - Absence of show cause -
Stigmatic action by State instrumentality
- Authority casting stigma must ensure
due process including copy of inquiry
report and opportunity of response.(Para -
3,6,7,8,9,11)

Petitioner, an empanelled advocate with FCI -
was served multiple orders demanding refund of
Rs.17,16,767/- as excess payment based on an
internal committee report - without being served
a copy of such report or given opportunity to
participate in the inquiry - recovery was being
sought by the client (F.C.I.) against the
Advocate (petitioner) by way of setting off
alleged excess payments against the payments
810 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that were due to be paid to the petitioner in
future. (Para - 2,3,6,10)

HELD: - Authorities had overstepped their limits
by passing the impugned orders, which were
definitely stigmatic in nature. Not only did the
orders put a stigma on the petitioner, but they
were also an attempt to deprive the petitioner
of valuable compensation for services offered by
him. The impugned orders could not be
sustained and were quashed and set aside.
Liberty was granted to f.C.I. to proceed de-novo
in accordance with law. (Para -8,11,12)

Writ petition disposed of. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Improvement Trust, Ropar through its
Chairman Vs S. Tejinder Singh Gujral & ors.,
1995 Supp (4) SSC 577

2. K.N. Mishra Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2006 (4)
ADJ 473 (All) (DB)

3. Prithipal Singh Vs St. of Punj. & ors., 2003
Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 103

4. St. of Har. & anr. Vs Jagdish Chander, (1995)
2 Supreme Court Cases 567

5. U.P. St. Road Transport Corp. & ors. Vs
Brijesh Kumar & anr,. AIR 2024 SC 4424

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
& Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

1. Heard Shri Shashi Nandan, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Manoj
Kumar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
and Shri Nishant Mehrotra, learned counsel
for the respondent-Corporation.

2. This is a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
wherein the petitioner is aggrieved of by
several orders dated 05.03.2024 (Annexure
No. 13), 24/28.06.2022 (Annexure No. 10),
24.06.2022
(Annexure
No.
8)
and
16.02.2022 (Annexure No. 5) passed by the
respondent-Corporation, wherein it has
been claimed that excess payments of
professional fees were made to the
petitioner for services as an empanelled
Advocate of the Corporation for the
financial years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 20192020 amounting to Rs.17,16,767/- (rupees
seventeen lac sixteen thousand seven
hundred sixty seven). The orders impugned
are based on a report formulated by a
Committee that was constituted by the
office of the Food Corporation of India. It
appears that this Committee carried out an
inquiry and based on such inquiry, the
impugned
orders
have
been
passed
demanding the alleged excess payments
made to the petitioner.

3. Mr. Shashi Nandan, learned
Senior
Advocate
appearing
for
the
petitioner submits that the entire procedure
followed by the Authority is unknown in
law and is a gross violation of principles of
natural justice inasmuch as even no copy of
inquiry report was ever served upon the
petitioner nor was he allowed to participate
in such inquiry. He further submits that in
the guise of demanding excess payment,
the Authority has cast a stigma on the
petitioner, which would obviously be taken
as
a
stand
for
termination
of
the
empanellment of the petitioner at a later
stage.

4. Per contra, Mr. Nishant
Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of Food Corporation of India
submits that there is no provision in law for
providing the inquiry report of the
Committee to the petitioner as the same
was an internal financial investigation
carried out by the Committee. The purpose
of the inquiry was to carry out audit of the
payments being made to the lawyers and
other persons. He relied upon the judgment
3 All. Vijay Kumar Dixit Vs. Union of India & Ors.
811
of
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
Improvement Trust, Ropar through its
Chairman vs. S. Tejinder Singh Gujral
and others, 1995 Supp (4) Supreme
Court Cases 577 and a Division Bench
judgment of this Court in K.N. Mishra vs.
State of U.P. and others, 2006 (4) ADJ
473 (All) (DB) to buttress his argument that
writ petition by an Advocate for recovery
of fees is not maintainable.

5. In this particular case, no
counter affidavit has been called for by us
as we find that the matter hinges the
principles of natural justice qua inquiry,
which fact was undisputed before us.

6. The record clearly shows that
the inquiry report of the Committee was
never provided to the petitioner as also
stated by the petitioner in response to the
notice issued to him subsequent to the
inquiry. Furthermore, the petitioner was
never put to show cause with regard to any
of the excess payments of professional fees
made to him prior to issue of demand
notice. In fact the demand notices were in
the nature of orders to deposit the amount
in bank account of the Corporation. It is not
in dispute that the petitioner was never a
part of the inquiry.

7. Upon considering the various
facts and circumstances of the case, we are
of the view that any order that is passed by
an Authority that has the flavour of stigma
being cast upon a person is required to be
carried out in a particular manner where
there is a due process of law. Such process
of law requires the person against whom
such stigma is being cast to be granted an
opportunity to place his case. The person
should also be provided a copy of inquiry
report, if any, and, thereafter, given a
chance to submit his response to the same.
The above ingredients are obviously
missing in the present case.

8. Ergo, we are of the view that the
Authorities had overstepped their limits by
passing the impugned orders, which are
definitely stigmatic in nature. Not only do
the orders put a stigma on the petitioner but
are also an attempt to deprive the petitioner
of valuable compensation for services
offered by him.

9. The issue as to when an action
of an instrumentality of the State casts a
stigma on a person, the principles of natural
justice must be followed, is no res-integra.
Such an issue normally comes before the
courts in service matters. However, the
principle remains the same in all actions
undertaken by the instrumentality of the
State. In this regard, we may refer to
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Prithipal Singh vs. State of Punjab and
others, 2003 Supreme Court Cases
(L&S) 103, wherein a constable working in
Punjab police as a temporary employee was
discharged from service and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, having found the discharge
order as stigmatic, annulled the decision of
the employer on the ground that principles
of natural justice were not followed and no
opportunity of hearing was afforded to the
constable before passing the discharge
order. State of Haryana and another vs.
Jagdish Chander, (1995) 2 Supreme
Court Cases 567 is also an authority on the
same point. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation & others vs. Brijesh Kumar
& another, AIR 2024 SC 4424, has held
that determination of services of the
employee on the ground of misconduct as
alleged but without holding any regular
inquiry or affording opportunity of hearing
to him and simply based upon some report,
812 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
copy whereof was not even supplied to the
employee and no show cause notice having
been issued to him, the termination was
apparently stigmatic in nature, which could
not have been done without following the
principles of natural justice.

10. We do not need to join issue
with the judgments cited by learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents as the principle therein is
accepted by us that an Advocate cannot file
a writ petition for recovery of this
professional fees. However, the present
factual matrix of the case is completely
different, wherein recovery is being sought
by the client (F.C.I.) against the Advocate
(petitioner) by way of setting off alleged
excess payments against the payments that
are due to be paid to the petitioner in
future.

11. In light of above discussion,
the impugned orders dated 05.03.2024
(Annexure
No.
13),
24/28.06.2022
(Annexure No. 10), 24.06.2022 (Annexure
No. 8) and 16.02.2022 (Annexure No. 5) by
the
respondent-Corporation
cannot
be
sustained and are quashed and set aside.

12. Liberty is granted to the Food
Corporation of India to proceed de-novo
with the investigation against the petitioner,
if it wishes to do so. However, the
Corporation
must
comply
with
the
principles of natural justice as enunciated
above.

13. The writ petition stands
disposed of.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 812
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 1001723 of 2003

Pawan Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
A.N. Mishra, Virendra Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Revenue Law - Stamp Duty - Legality
of
orders
under
Stamp
Act
and
interpretation
of
agreement
vis-à-vis
transfer of possession - Indian Stamp Act,
1899 - Sections 56 & 47A/33 - U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act,
1950
-
Section
164
-
Indian
Registration
Act,
1908
-
Relevant
Provisions - Transfer of possession alone
is not sufficient for applicability of Section
164; transfer of possession must be in
pursuance
of
transfer
of
holding
-
Registered instrument necessary for value
exceeding Rs.100 - Legal pre-condition for
Section 164 not established - agreement
to
sell
cannot
confer
title.(Para
-
6,8,14,15,16)

Petitioner challenged orders passed under the
Indian Stamp Act - regarding deficiency of
stamp
duty
on
tenancy
agreement
and
subsequent revision - both orders passed
without recording reasons or findings. (Para - 2
to 5)

HELD: - Court quashed the orders passed
under Sections 56 and 47A/33 of the Indian
Stamp Act, holding that they lacked reasons and
findings. Mere delivery of possession under an
unregistered agreement does not constitute a
valid transfer under Section 164 of the U.P. ZA
& LR Act. (Para -16 to 18)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited: