Yashwant Varma, J. - (1.) The Court has heard Sri N.C. Rajvanshi, learned senior counsel ably assisted by Sri Vishesh Rajvanshi for the petitioner and Sri Kshitij Shailendra alongwith Sri Sumeet Kakkar learned counsels who have appeared for the fourth respondent. Although the State was duly served and on notice, none has appeared or addressed submissions on its behalf.
(2.) The papers of this writ petition have come to be placed before this Court in light of the difference of opinion expressed by the Hon'ble members constituting the Division Bench of the Court in accordance with the provisions made in Chapter VIII Rule 3 of the Rules of the Court. While Kesarwani J. upon an examination of the contentions addressed held that the writ petition would merit dismissal, Bhanot J. has held that in light of the issues which arise, the respondents must be required to file their counter affidavits in the matter to enable the Court to deal with the questions raised in greater detail.
(3.) The petitioner is an association of stamp vendors engaged in the occupation of distribution and sale of judicial and non-judicial stamp paper in its physical form. They question the terms of a proposed agreement drawn by the Stock Holding Corporation of India,SHCIL the Central Record Keeping Agency CRA appointed as such under the Uttar Pradesh E-Stamping Rules, 2013 2013 Rules. The constituents of the petitioner association are licensed vendors appointed in terms of Rule 151 of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp Rules, 1942 1942 Rules framed in exercise of the powers conferred on the State Government by Sections 74 and 75 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 Act.;