SHETHNA, J. - (1.) ALL these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment and order as common question of law is involved in all these petitions.
(2.) THE Rajasthan Finance Act, 2000 (for short "the Act") received the assent of the Governor on 9. 05. 2000. Chapter 6 relates to amendments in Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952. Section 56 (1) of the Stamp Act reads as under:- " 56. (1) The powers exercisable by a Collector under Chapter IV and Chapter V and under clause (a) of the first proviso to section 26 shall in all cases be subject to the control of the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " Under Sec. 18 of the Act, Sec. 56 (1) of the Stamp Act was substituted by following:- " 56. Revision by, and statement of case to, Chief Controlling Revenue Authority - (1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the Collector under chapter IV and V and under clause (a) of the first proviso to Sec. 26 and u/s. 31 of the Act, may within ninety days from the date of order, apply to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority for revision of such order: Provided that no revision application shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment of fifty percent of the recoverable amount. " It was sent for assent of his Excellency the President of India, but the same has not been given. By way of all these petitions, all the petitioners have prayed that amended provisions of Sec. 56 (1) of the Stamp Act as amended by Rajasthan Finance Act, 2000 be declared ultra vires and be struck down and accordingly, the orders passed by the Board of Revenue dismissing the revision petitions on the ground of not depositing 50% of the recoverable amount at the time of filing of revision be also quashed and set aside and the matters be remanded to the Board of Revenue with a direction to hear and decide the revision petitions in accordance with law.
(3.) IT was vehemently submitted by learned counsel Mr. B. L. Purohit, Mr. G. R. Goyal, and Mr. H. S. Sandhu for the petitioners that when the State Government failed in its attempt to curtail the rights of citizens by amending identical Rule, which were held to be ultra vires by this Court, this device has been found out by the State and Sec. 56 (1) of the Act is amended under the Rajasthan Finance Act, 2000 but his Excellency the President of India has rightly not given his consent, as provided under Article 254 (2) of the Constitution of India. IT was also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that when there is concurrent jurisdiction of the Central and State, then the Central enactment cannot be enacted by enacting State Legislation which is repugnant to the Central Legislation unless and until his Excellency the President of India gives his assent to it as provided under Article 254 of the Constitution of India. IT was submitted that considering hardships to be faced by the citizens of State of Rajasthan, his Excellency the President of India has not given his consent to the Act of 2000. Therefore, amended Sec. 56 (1) of the Act must be declared as ultra vires and accordingly, it may be struck down. As against this, the learned Addl. Advocate General, Shri Rajendra Vyas has vehemently submitted that merely because assent is not given by his Excellency the President of India it would not be a ground for this Court to declare the amended provisions of Sec. 56 (1) of the Act as ultra vires. He submitted that there is no repugnancy in the matter. By amending Sec. 56 (1) of the Act, the only provision made by the State Government is that while filing revision petition, one has to first deposit 50% of the amount as ordered by the Collector (Stamps ). He further submitted that right of appeal or revision is a creation of statute and there is no reason why the Legislature while granting right of appeal or revision should not impose such condition of deposit of 50% of the recoverable amount at the time of filing revision. Earlier under Rule 73 of the Rajasthan Stamps Rules it was required to deposit 50% of the recoverable amount as condition precedent for entertaining the revision petition. The same was challenged before this Court as ultra vires, and it was held to be ultra vires. Accordingly, it was struck down by the learned Single Judge of this Court on the ground that the Government could not make the procedure of entertaining the revision so onerous or burdensome to the citizens of the State. The said order of the learned Single Judge was challenged in the special appeal which coincidentally came up before this very Bench and same was dismissed on 10. 10. 2000. It is stated at the Bar by the learned counsel for the parties that the SLP filed against the said judgment was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. ;