1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1009 OF 1999 National Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development. ...Petitioner. vs. 1.The State of Maharashtra and others. ...Respondents. --- Mr.S.P.Bharati, for Petitioner. Mr.M.D.Naik, AGP for Respondents. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATED: 7th September,2009 P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioner-Bank challenges letter dated 22.12.1997 addressed to the Bank by the Superintendent of Stamps, Mumbai. By that letter, the Superintendent of Stamps has directed the petitioner to pay stamp duty on the agreement to lease dated 16.12.1994. It is further directed that in 2 case, on failure to pay stamp duty, penalty will be levied against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted reply dated 14.1.1998 wherein firstly the petitioner has pointed out that the date of agreement is not 16.12.1994 but it is 22.10.1994. The principle defence of the petitioner was that the lease was not created by that agreement, but only agreement to create lease was entered into. It was also contended that what was agreed to be created is lease and not the licence. The learned Counsel submitted that pursuant to that agreement thereafter a lease deed has been executed and the petitioner has paid stamp duty on that lease deed. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for Respondents. In this situation, in our opinion, the following order would meet the ends of justice:- (i) The Superintendent of Stamps/Respondent no.2 shall treat the reply of the petitioner dated 14.1.1998, a copy of which is at Exhibit G to this petition, as a representation of the petitioner and 3 shall pass a speaking order after granting an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner holding either that the petitioner is liable to pay stamp duty or the petitioner is not liable to pay stamp duty. (ii) The petitioner shall be free to place before the Authority any material including the fact that as stated by the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner, the petitioner has already paid stamp duty on the lease deed entered into pursuant to the Agreement dated 22.10.1994. (iii) In case, the order of the Authorities goes against the petitioner, the remedies that may be available to the petitioner against that order are also kept open. All the contentions available to both the sides are also kept open. Petition is disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)