IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5682 OF 2008. M/s Divekar Auto Private Ltd., through Shankar Baburao Divekar (MD). .... PETITIONER. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others. .... RESPONDENTS. ... Shri R.P. Bhumkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. V.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for State - respondents. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2009. PER COURT: 1. This petition takes exception to the order dated 3rd February, 2007 and demand notice dated 8.8.2008 issued by respondent No.3. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 3rd February, 2007 is passed by the respondent no.3 without any notice or hearing to the present petitioner and, therefore, on that ground alone the said order is required to be set aside. The learned Counsel further submitted that the demand notice issued on the basis of the order dated 3rd February, 2007 cannot be sustained in case the original order is set aside. He further submitted that since the order was passed behind back of the petitioner by respondent no.3, the petitioner filed an application to review the order passed on 3rd February, 2007 and the said application is pending before the respondent no.3 and therefore, the learned Counsel submitted that this petition deserves to be allowed. 3. The learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondent State submitted that once the order is passed by the authority i.e. Respondent NO.3, there is no provision to review the same. It is further submitted that there is remedy of appeal provided under Section 32-B of the Bombay Stamps Act and in view of the alternate remedy being available, this writ petition cannot be entertained. 4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the impugned order, as argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, was passed without hearing the petitioner. This position is undisputed. However, I find considerable substance in the argument advanced by the learned A.G.P. that in view of the statutory remedy of appeal being available to the petitioner, this writ petition cannot be entertained. To strike balance between the interest of the parties, it is necessary to protect the present petitioner till his application is decided by respondent No.3 which is pending for some time. 5. Therefore, without entering into the merits of the matter and in view of the remedy of appeal being available under Section 32-B of the said Act, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to pursue hearing of the application pending before the concerned authority Respondent No.3. Till the said application is decided by respondent No.3 and three weeks thereafter, the impugned order dated 3.2.2007 and demand notice dated 8.8.2008 issued by Respondent no.3 shall remain stayed. With these observations, writ petition is allowed to be withdrawn and disposed of. It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits of the matter and it will be open for the parties to agitate all the points. Since the application is pending for some time, respondent no.3 to dispose of the said application filed by the petitioner, preferably within two months from today. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] ... PLK/#