1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Aabid Hussain & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 8505/2007 ......... Date of Order : 26/05/2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Varun Goyal for the petitioner. Mr. N.M.Lodha, Addl. Advocate General for respondents. By the instant writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order Annex.1 and Annex.2 dated 30.9.2005 as also challenged the validity of Section 65 (1) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (for short 'the Act of 1998' hereinafter) and also validity of Rule 58 (1) of the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 2004 (for short 'the Rules of 2004' hereinafter) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. So far as the validity of Section 65 (1) of the Act of 2 1998 is concerned, that has been held to be constitutionally valid by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.458/2006 “M/s Choksi Heraeus Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur Vs. State and Ors.” decided on 01-11-2007. The orders impugned Annex.1 and Annex.2 have been challenged by writ petition, whereas they are two different orders between different parties. Be that as it may, The provisions of Rule 58 (1) of the Rules of 2004 has nothing to do with the orders impugned as the orders impugned have been passed under Section 51 of the Act of 1998. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that while deciding the matter under Section 51 of the Act of 1998, the D.L.C. rate has also been taken into consideration by the respondents and therefore, impliedly the orders impugned have been passed invoking Rule 58 (1) of the Rules of 2004. Learned counsel further submits that validity of Rule 59B of the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Rules of 1955) came to be challenged before this Court in Satyam Properties and 13 Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2002 WLC (UC) 313 and the same has been struck down by the Division Bench of this Court and the provision of Rule 58 (1) of the Rules of 2004 is pari-materia to that of Rule 59B of the Rules of 1955. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the order of Division Bench in satyam Properties & Ors. (supra) 3 came to be challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court and operation of the judgment rendered in Satyam Properties and Ors. has been stayed. This fact has not been disputed. Even otherwise, the validity of Rule 58 (1) of the Rules of 2004 is not required to be examined in the instant case since no order has been passed, on the contrary the order has been passed under Section 51 of the Act of 1998. Moreso, the order impugned is revisable under Section 65 of the Rajasthan Stamps Act and the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition without availing the alternative and efficacious remedy. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. However, it will be open for the petitioners to challenge the orders impugned if so advised by way of revision. Stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp