IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 547 of 2007. Date of decision: 7.5.2009 Sh.Sukh Dev …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P & anr. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Mr.M.S.Guleria, Advocate For the respondents: S/Shri R.K.Bawa, Advocate General and R.M.Bisht, Dy.Advocate General _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order, Annexure PA whereby the Sub Registrar-cum-Tehsildar, Sarkaghat, District Mandi has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.55,105/- being the alleged shortfall in the stamp duty paid on some instruments. We need not go into the merits of the case since the only point involved in this case is whether Sub Registrar-cum-Tehsildar, Sarkaghat was authorized to take such action or not? This matter is no longer res judicata. 2 The provisions of Section 47A of the H.P. Stamp Act have been considered in detail by a Division Bench of this Court in Harcharan Singh Gill & Ors. Vs. State of H.P & Ors. 2003 HLJ 489. The relevant portion of this judgment reads as follows:- 3. “In the reply it has been averred by the respondents that the applicant was placed in senior scale w.e.f. 1.1.1986 in pursuance to the Finance Department orders. However, subsequent order of Finance Department clarified that while releasing such scale over all work and conduct should be taken into consideration. In view of these revised instructions, the case of the applicant was reviewed and as certain penalty was in operation against the applicant at the time of his eligibility, the scale granted to him was withdrawn. It is also averred that the applicant was asked to furnish an undertaking at the time of granting this scale that the applicant was refund excess amount as may be called upon. 4. The arguments were heard and the pleadings were gone into carefully. Admittedly, there is neither any mis- representation on the part of the applicant nor any fraud played by him while he was given the benefit. The law in this regard is well settled that where there is no mis- representation on the part of an individual in grant of any monetary benefits, the recovery of same cannot be effected from him. The Hon’ble Apex Court in AIR 1994 SC 2480 titled as Bhagwan Shukla Vs Union of India and others has held that: (para 3): We have heard learned counsel for the parties. That the petitioner’s basic pay had been fixed since 1970 3 at Rs.190/- PM is not disputed. There is also no dispute that the basic pay of the appellant was reduced to Rs.181/- PM from Rs.190/- PM in 1991 retrospectively w.e.f. 18.12.1970. The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequences but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of his basic pay. He was not even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the following any procedure known to law. There, has thus, been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suffer huge financial loss without being heard. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. Since that was not done, the order (memorandum) dated 25.7.1991, which was impugned before the Tribunal could not certainly be sustained and the Central Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of the appellant. The order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. We, accordingly, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17.12.1993 as well as the order (memorandum) impugned before the Tribunal dated 25.7.1991 reducing the basic pay of the appellant from Rs.190/- to Rs.181/- w.e.f. 18.12.1990” In view of the law laid down by this Court, there can be no dispute that the impugned order has been passed by an authority not competent to issue such an order. Therefore, the same is quashed. It is however , made clear that the officer competent to take action 4 can initiate proceedings if so advised. Writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge May 7, 2009 (V.K.Ahuja) (m) Judge