Wimco Seedldings Ltd v. State of Uttaranchal

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned respondent No.2/Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, the present petition has been preferred.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The only controversy to be decided in this case is whether the subsequent permission (annexure-13 to the petition) by the State Government has No Objection to initiate the proceedings against the petitioners in response to the letter dated 19th October, 2001 on

01.01.2002 can be termed as permission u/s 34 (4) (5) of the Act 1899 when the previous permission has been granted against Vinay Narian Agarwal and Pawan Kumar by the State Government (Annexure-9 to the petition) dated 30th June, 2001 in which the State Government has granted permission to initiate the proceedings against Vinay Narain Agarwal and Pawan Kumar.

The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the section is of penal in nature and the permission should have been granted in a positive manner as has been granted earlier in the case of Vinay Narain Agarwal and Pawan Kumar. But in the case of the petitioners, the State Government has not granted permission. It was written to the Additional District Magistrate (F.&R.)/respondent No.3 Government has no objection to initiate the proceedings in the case. This objection was raised before issuing the notice by the petitioners before the Additional District Magistrate (F.&R.)/respondent No.3. In my view, before issuing the notice, the objection of the petitioners was premature. Hence it was not considered by the Additional District Magistrate (F.&R.)/respondent No.3. The Additional District Magistrate (F.&R.)/respondent No.3 issued the amended notice to the petitioner (Wimco Greens) which was taken over by the Wimco Seedling Ltd. having its registered office at Indian Mercantile Chambers, Ramji Bhai Kamani Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400038.

In my view, the revision filed by the Wimco Greens is premature because the Wimco Greens had to file objection against the amended notice before the Additional District Magistrate (F.&R.)/respondent No.3 with the averment that the amended notice issued against the Wimco Greens was issued on the basis of no objection by the State and that is not a permission in the eye of law. Before issuing the notice, the Wimco Greens filed the premature objection and the objection was considered by the Additional District Magistrate (F.&R.)/respondent No.3 at that stage.

Now according to the petitioners the averment made in the writ petition that the Wimco Greens, an association of the persons taken over by Wimco Seedlings having registered office at Indian Mercantile Chambers, Ramji Bhai Kamani Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai. Now Wimco Greens has to be represented by Wimco Seedlings and Wimco Seedling who had not filed any objection against the amended notice which was issued by the Additional District Magistrate (F.&R.)/respondent No.3 against the Wimco Greens on the basis of alleged permission by the State Government.

In view of the foregoing discussion, the petitioners file objection before the Additional District Magistrate (F.&R.)/respondent No.3 and the Additional District Magistrate (F.&R.)/respondent No.3 without being influenced by the findings of the respondent No. 2/Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner shall decide the preliminary objection in accordance with whether the proceedings to recover the amount of deficit stamp duty can be initiated against the Wimco Greens or not and whether the no objection by the State Government to initiate the proceedings regarding deficit of stamp duty could be termed as permission under Section 34 (4) (5) of Act 1899 or the proceedings are within limitation.

In view of the above, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order passed by the respondent No. 2/Additioanl Chief Revenue Commissioner