Satsang Bhawan Ki Gali, Rajpura Ward, Baran, Rajasthan- vs State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary,

Judgment

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Inspector General, Department Of Registration And Stamps, Government Of Rajasthan, Lohagal Road, Ajmer,

5. Rajasthan - 305001. Collector (Stamps), Circle Kota, Kota, Rajasthan. Sub Registrar Baran, District Baran Rajasthan. Branch Manager, Baran Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Head Office, Near Bus Stand, Baran, Rajasthan- 325205 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Punit Singhvi with Mr. Ayush Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kartikeya Sharma on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT 06/05/2025 Order

2. Heard. Challenge to order dated 28.03.2022 passed by Collector (Stamps), Circle Kota is under assail in this petition mainly on the ground of serious irregularity in exercise of statutory power.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a pointed submission that the order of the Collector (Stamps) proceeds on [2025:RJ-JP:19141-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-2402/2025] incorrect factual premise that there was no reply filed whereas, the reply of the respondents clearly admits that the petitioner had filed reply and even oral submissions were made. He would submit that the order of the Collector (Stamps) suffers from the aforesaid defect, as her reply was not at all taken into consideration under incorrect factual assumption that there does not exist any reply. The order of Collector (Stamps) is a monologue and does not take into consideration the stand taken by the petitioner as submitted in her reply nor does it take into consideration the oral submissions made. Therefore, it is prayed that the order may be set aside.

4. Submission of respondent is that on 16.03.2022, the petitioner presented her reply before the Collector (Stamps) and made oral submissions, thereafter the matter was posted on

28.03.2022 for orders and then orders have been passed. The recitals in the order that though time was granted, but no reply was filed nor anyone appeared is only an inadvertent mistake, but it does not otherwise affect the merits of the case. He would further submit that otherwise also the petitioner has other remedy provided under the law and he ought to have preferred those alternative remedies rather than rushing to the Writ Court.

5. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and upon perusal of the record, we are of the view that the impugned order deserves to be set aside only on the ground that even though the reply of the petitioner which was admittedly filed and oral submissions were also taken note of, the order impugned proceeds on incorrect factual premise. [2025:RJ-JP:19141-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-2402/2025]

6. The submission that it was an inadvertent mistake in not mentioning certain facts, cannot be accepted in view of what has been laid down by the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 851, wherein their Lordships’ in the Supreme Court firmly laid down following propositions of law: “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought, out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji (AIR 1952 SC 16) (at p.18): "Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in Ms mind, or what he intended to, do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older: A Caveat” It is well settled legal position that validity of a statutory order has to be judged on the basis of what has been written in the order. The order clearly shows that no reply was filed nor anyone appeared which is contrary to original records and the reply on affidavit filed by respondents themselves wherein, it has been stated thus: [2025:RJ-JP:19141-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-2402/2025] “It is not disputed that on 23.02.2022, the petitioner appeared before the Collector (Stamps) and on the said date, neither the petitioner filed the reply, nor did it make any proper oral submissions. Subsequently, on 16.03.2022 the petitioner presented its reply before the Collector (Stamps) and made oral submissions and the matter was posted on 28.03.2022 for orders. Thereafter, on 28.03.2022, the Collector (Stamps) passed the order dated 28.03.2022.”

7. It is apparent that though the reply was on record and even hearing had taken place on 16.03.2022, it was wrongly recorded in the order that there was neither any reply nor any oral submissions were made. The material defect in the decision making process has vitiated the entire exercise undertaken by the Collector (Stamps) and that makes a ground for interference by us in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding existence of alternative remedy and we accordingly, do so.

8. In the result, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is set aside. All consequential actions taken are declared illegal and inoperative. A liberty is reserved to issue notice afresh, hear the petitioner, consider her reply and then pass such orders, as may be considered appropriate in accordance with law.

9. The petition stands allowed, accordingly. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ RAJAT-RAHUL/189