1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.836 OF 2010 ... M/s.Neelsidhi Developers ..Petitioner v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors. ..Respondents ... Mr.G.S.Godbole i/b Mrs.Jai V.Kanade for the Petitioner. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for State. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & A.R.JOSHI, JJ DATED: 10th February,2010 P.C.: 1. It appears that the Petitioner has purchased some stamp papers, which he wanted to return. For that purpose an application was made by the Petitioner on 27-3-2008. On 2 that application an order for refund was made in December, 2008. The authorities while ordering refund ordered deduction from the amount to be refunded, according to amended Rule 22-A of the Bombay Stamps Rules, which was in force on the date on which the order was made by the authorities. 2. The Petitioner in this petition challenges deduction made as per the amended Rule 22-A of the Bombay Stamps Rules from the amount refunded to the Petitioner. The first submission of the Petitioner is that amendment to Rule 22-A was made by notification dated 9-6-2008 and while making that amendment the requirement of prior publication was dispensed with. The submission is that by virtue of the provisions of Section 69 of the Bombay Stamps Act the State Government which is the Rule 3 making authority has power to dispense with the requirement of prior publication of the Rule if the Rule making authority is satisfied that circumstances exist that render it necessary to take immediate action. The submission of the Petitioner is that there are no circumstances which made it necessary for the Rule making authority to take immediate action. 3. So far as this contention is concerned, in our opinion, decision to dispense with the requirement of prior publication is a decision of the Rule making authority and therefore when the Rule making authority dispenses with the requirement of prior publication by recording its satisfaction, the court will not be justified in going beyond that declaration. Then it is submitted that the requirement of sub-section 4 4 of Section 69 has not been complied with. Sub-section 4 of Section 69 of the Act contemplates laying of the Rules before the Legislature. The Petitioner had on the basis of personal information said that the Rules have not been laid as required by sub-section 4 of Section 69. It is impossible for the Petitioner to know on the basis of personal information that the Rules have not been laid before the Legislature. It can not be said that the Rules come into force even before they are laid before the Legislature. The last submission of the Petitioner is that the amended Rules will not apply to the case of the Petitioner, because he had made the application for refund before the Rule was amended. In our opinion, the submission is not well founded. The rule will apply on the date on which the refund is ordered by the Collector and not when the application for 5 refund was made. The amount that will have to be deducted from the amount to be refunded will be in accordance with Rules which were in force on the date on which the refund is ordered and not either when the stamp papers which are returned were purchased or on the date on which the application for refund was made. We do not find any substance in the petition. Petition is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (A.R.JOSHI, J.)