1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5120/2007 Bhagirath v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 8th April, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Varun Goyal, for the petitioner. Mr. Rameshwar Dave, for the respondents. .... While opposing the permission sought for withdrawal of this petition for writ, it is urged by counsel for the respondents that the conduct of the petitioner demands dismissal of this petition for writ with a note of reprimand. The petitioner preferred the instant petition for writ giving challenge to the order dated 30.10.2003 passed by the Collector (Stamps) making an order to recover deficit stamp duty in a tune of Rs.1,44,000/-. To explain delay in filing the petition for writ, an explanation was also offered by the petitioner in following terms:- “That the petitioner was not having any information regarding the above decision of the Collector Stamps as his engaged lawyer 2 Shri Ashu Ram Upadhyay did not inform him about the decision of the case. On 18.07.2007 he received a notice from Deputy Registrar (Stamps) Bajju regarding the deposition of remaining Stamp Duty worth Rs.1,44,000/- he immediately counselted his counsel and got the information regarding the decision of the case on 30.10.2003 and immediately applied for the certified copy of the order on the very same day. The certified copy of the order was provided on 20.07.2007 and after getting the same the petitioner made arrangement for the expenditure for the litigation and came to Jodhpur on 13.08.2007 and conselted his counsel Mr. Varun Goyal to file the above writ petition.” (Emphasis given by me) The petitioner also questioned vires of the provisions of Rule 58(1) of the Rajasthan Stamps Rules 2004 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2004”), hence on 21.8.2007, an order was passed by this Court as follows:- “Since the petitioner has challenged the vires of Rule 58 framed under the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 2004 and the identical provision was found to be ultra vires by the Division Bench of this Court in the case delivered in Satyam Properties & 13 Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2002 WLC (Raj.) UC 313, therefore, the writ petition is admitted. 3 Issue notice to the respondents. Meanwhile, no recovery be effected from the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 02.07.2007 passed by the Deputy Registrar (Stamps), Bajju. Connect with SBCWP NO.4096/2007 and 1580/2007.” Relevant to note here that to approach this Court by ignoring statutory remedy available under the Rules of 2004, it was averred in the petition for writ that “though the petitioner is having alternative remedy to file a revision before Tax Board, Ajmer under section 65 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 but before filing the above revision 50% of the asking stamp duty is required to be deposited, therefore, this provision is amount to be a clog on power of revision and is very onerous and burdens of therefore, the petitioner is not having any other alternate remedy except to approach his Hon'ble Court by way of filing the above writ petition under article 226 and 227 of the constitution of India”. The respondents, in written, alleged concealment and misrepresentation of material facts on the count that the petitioner as a matter of fact availed the remedy of revision before the Rajasthan Tax Board and the Tax Board dismissed the same on 26.4.2006 i.e. more than a year prior to filing this 4 petition for writ. A copy of the order dated 26.4.2006 is also placed on record as Anx.R/2. As per learned counsel for the petitioner the non-reference of the order passed by the Tax Board is only an error and, therefore, he wants to get this petition dismissed as withdrawn. I have examined the entire record. The petitioner in para 5 of the petition levelled a specific allegation against Shri Ashu Ram Upadhyay, Advocate to the extent that he did not inform him about decision of case by the Collector (Stamps). The petitioner has projected the entire matter as if he came to know about the order dated 30.10.2003 only on 18.7.2007, whereas after getting certified copy of the order passed by the Collector (Stamps) he approached to the Rajasthan Tax Board in the year 2004 itself, as it appears from the number given to the revision petition i.e. Revision Petition No.2018/2005 (16/04)/Bikaner. The number 16/04 clearly indicates that the revision petition was filed by the petitioner in early 2004. The facts stated in para 5 of the writ petition, therefore, are apparently false. A false allegation against his lawyer Shri Ashu Ram Upadhyay is made by the petitioner about not giving information relating to the order passed by the Collector though he filed a revision petition before 5 Tax Board within limitation. The petitioner, therefore, is certainly guilty for making a false statement on oath and also for misrepresentation of facts. The petitioner admittedly approached Rajasthan Tax Board by way of filing a revision petition and that revision petition was dismissed on 26.4.2006. Not only the reference of that was not given in the petition for writ but an absolute misstatement of fact was given that remedy provided under the Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998 was ignored by him being onerous. The petitioner made all these false statements only with a view to get this petition entertained and to get an interim order. A person of such conduct, in no case, is entitled for getting any relief under discretionary jurisdiction of this Court. The conduct of the petitioner, therefore, is highly deplorable and deserves to be reprimanded. Accordingly, this petition for writ is dismissed with a cost of Rs.28,800/- i.e. a sum equivalent to 20% of the amount sought to be recovered from the petitioner against the deficit payment of stamp duty. The Collector (Stamps) Bikaner may proceed against the petitioner for effecting recovery as per law. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.