A Company incorporated under the Companies Act v. M/s Sarda Energy & Minerals Limited

^"~ State of Chhattisgarh, through Inspector General, Registration, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Respondent No.2 2. Collector of Stamps, Rajnandgaon (CG) Respondent No.3. 3, Sub Registrar, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) Versus Respondent: Petitioner M/s Sarda Eneergy & Mjnerals Limited (formerly known as Raipur Alloys & Steel Ltd. & Raipur Wires & Steel Ltd.), ',*'' . •^f'..^- < .-.<-•''? ' .,•?;•'"' 'M''

A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with the Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra, having its Registered Office at 73-A, Central Avenue, Nagpur (M.S.) and Corporation Office & Works at Industrial Growth Centre, Phase-1, Siltara, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) through Gopal Ranjan Panigrahi, S/o Shri C. P. Panigrahi, Senior Officer Legal) & Power of Attorney HolderofCompany. WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 ("D OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DMSION BENCH) ACT, 2006. ^..'^...".^. ^^^- .s ••<? ^ y VT' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI YATINDRA SINGH, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J WritAppeal No.473 of 2013 Appellants State of Chhattisgarh and others Respondent Petitioner VERSUS M/s Sarda Energy & Minerals Limited Writ Appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 Appearance: Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General, for the appellants/ State. Shri Amrito Das, counsel for the respondent. JUDGEMENT (13th August, 2013)

1. This is a writ appeal against the order of the single judge dated 02.04.2013 allowing the Writ Petition (C)- 6757 of 2009 filed by M/s Sarda Energy& Minerals Limited (the contesting-Respondent). THE FACTS 2. The contesting-Respondent was initially incorporated in the name of Raipur Wires and Steels Limited on 23.06.1973. This name was changed to RaipurAlloys and Steeis Limited on 08.07.1985.

Subsequently, the State Government executed a lease-deed for immovable property on 30.12.2002 in favour of Raipur Alloys and Steels Limited.

Subsequently, The name, Raipur Alloys and Steels Limited was also changed to M/s Sarda Energy & Minerals Limited on 02.08.2007. Thereafter, an application was filed by the contesting-Respondent before ^. 2-%, - t- the State Government to change the name of the lessee from M/s Raipur Alloys and Steels Limited to M/s Sarda Energy & Minerals Limited. Supplementary agreement was also executed on 05.03.2008 changing the name in the original lease-deed dated 30.12.2002.

The contesting-Respondent filed an application before the Sub-registrar for registering the supplementary agreement. On this application, matter was referred under the Stamp Act, 1899 (the Act) for calculating and affixing stamp duty on the supplementary agreement.

The aforesaid reference was registered as Revenue Case-15/B- 103/2007-08. The contesting-Respondent has also filed its objections against the same. The Collector of stamps rejected the objections of the contesting-Respondent and imposed stamp duty on 27.11.2008.

Against the aforesaid order, the contesting-Respondent filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue . It was also dismissed on 21.08.2009.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the contesting-Respondent filed Writ Petition (C)- 6757 of 2009. present writ appeal. It was allowed on 02.04.2013. Hence, the

We have heard counsel THE DECISION for the parties. condoning the delay in filing the writ appeal. The delay in filing the writ There is no objection in appeal is condoned.

It is not disputed by the parties that the Board of Revenue as well as the Collector of stamps while deciding the dispute were exercising quasi-judicial power and are Tribunal under supervisory jurisdiction of this court under article 227 of the Constitution. 1t. In Dr. Bhagwant Singh vs Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University and another(Writ Appeal-190 of 2007, decided on 25.06.2013) and M/s Sony p— <, .- ^ India Private Limited and Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others (WritAppeal No.214 of 2013 decided on 18.06.2013), it has been held that a statutory authority exereising quasi-judicial power is a Tribunal within the meaning of article 227 of the Constitution.

In SKS Ispat Limited Vs Union of India and others (Writ Appeal-1006 of 2012, decided on 12.12.2012), it has been held that it is not the heading of the writ petition, but substance of the order passed by the single judge is It is substance of the order passed that determines whether the material. order was passed under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution.

In the present case, the single judge after considering the submissions of the parties has allowed the writ petition. The substance of the order is under Article 227 and no power under Article 226 of the Constitution has been exercised.

In view of above and the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 2 of the the writ to Division Bench) Act, 2006, Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal appeal is not maintainable.