[2025:RJ-JP:7906-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2760/2021 Sai E Net Private Limited, J-140, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, Through Authorised Signatory Mr. Yash Baid ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Finance, Department Of Finance, Government Secretariat, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. 2. Collector (Stamps)-II, Jaipur, District Collectorate, Bani Park, Jaipur. 3. Sub-Registrar, Amer, Jaipur. 4. Asstt. Regional Manger, RIICO Ltd. Dausa ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shashank Kasliwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG with Mr. Kartikeya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Naval Kishore Saini, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 21/02/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL):- 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of ex-parte order dated 31.01.2013 passed by Collector (Stamps), Jaipur creating demand under the Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998 (for short ‘the Act of 1998’). 2. The short grievance in the petition is that the order has been passed without serving the notice on the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notices through registered post were sent on the plot allotted to the [2025:RJ-JP:7906-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-2760/2021] petitioner by the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (RIICO), which was a vacant land. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has a remedy of revision under Section 65 of the Act of 1998. It is further argued that notices through registered post were sent at the address of the land allotted to the petitioner. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai And Ors. reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 held: “15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field.” [2025:RJ-JP:7906-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-2760/2021] 6. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents that notices were sent through registered post on the address of the allotted land, does not enhance the case of the respondents. It is not being disputed in the reply filed that the land is lying vacant. 7. It cannot be lost site that in the lease deed which was with the respondent, the address of the petitioner-company is duly mentioned. There is nothing on record to show that the notices were issued and served on the address of the petitioner-company. 8. In the present case, no reasonable opportunity was provided to the petitioner, therefore, interference is being made in the writ jurisdiction. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Collector (Stamps), Jaipur to decide the issue afresh. 9. In order to avoid any further delay, let the representative of the petitioner-company appear before the office of the Collector (Stamps), Jaipur on 21.03.2025 at 11.00 a.m. 10. Considering that the impugned order was of the year 2013, the Collector (Stamps), Jaipur shall make a sincere endeavor to decide the issue expeditiously not later than three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 11. The petition is allowed. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Mohita/36 Whether Reportable: Yes/No