- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition against the order dated 29.03.2016 passed by the Collector, Kanpur Nagar in exercise of powers under Section 47 -A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) determining the deficiency in stamp duty in respect of document No.3366 dated 07.04.2012. The aforesaid order is appealable and is also revisable under Section 56 of the Act.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that alternate remedy is not an absolute bar and a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Vijaya Jain Vs. State of U.P. and others 2016 All. C. J. 386 has held that where an order passed by the authority under the Act is an ex parte order, the writ petition may not to be dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy. The Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have always viewed the rule of alternate remedy to be a self imposed restriction rather than a rule which brooks of no exception. The well recognised exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy are (i) where the order is without jurisdiction; (ii) where the order is rendered in violation of principles of natural justice; and (iii) where the order if allowed to stand causes grave in justice or relegating the partly to alternate remedy would perpetuate injustice.
(3.) The Division Bench referred to above also reiterates the some principles and hold an ex parte order to be a case of grave injustice but it does not lay down that in every case of ex parte order a writ would be entertainable as of right. This apart, in the present case the order impugned dated 29.03.2016 is not an ex parte order but an order passed after hearing the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order though passed after notice to the petitioner but it has been passed on the basis of the inspection report which was not conducted in the presence of the petitioners as required by Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997.;