Radhe Shyam Developers vs Deputy Collector -Stamp Duty and Assessment and 1

Honourable Mr. Justice K.M. Thaker

When the petition is called out and taken up for hearing learned advocate for the petitioner is not present. Any leave note or sick note is not filed. Request for adjournment or passover is also not made. Initially on 7.3.2012 the Court passed below mentioned order:

Notice for final disposal returnable on 20.3.2012. It is expected of the authorities to file affidavit-in-reply, if any, address to the issue as to how and in what way the document in question was not accepted, as the purchase is made under auction. If no affidavit-in-reply is filed, it will be presumed that there exists no ground whatsoever or reasons for resiting the petition and petition would be allowed with appropriate order. Learned advocate for petitioner assures the court that copy of notice will be served on respondents on or before 12.3.2012. Direct service permitted today.

Thereafter on 20.3.2012 the Court passed below mentioned order:

Shri K.A.Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner requests for time after seeking priority, as he is unable to point out details with regard to date of document to be stamped. At his request, matter is kept on 28.03.2012.

Thereafter hearing was adjourned to 28.3.2012. Since 28.3.2012 the hearing of the petition is being adjourned on account of non availability of the petitioner / learned advocate for petitioner or at the request of the learned advocate for the petitioner. The hearing has been adjourned on 28.3.2012, 3.4.2012, 25.4.2012, 3.5.2012, 28.6.2012 and 30.7.2012 on account of the request of learned advocate for the petitioner. Today also, as mentioned above, learned advocate for the petitioner is not present. The petitioner is also not present and any request for adjournment or passover is also not made.

Present petition preferred against order dated 15.12.2011 passed by the first adjudicating authority i.e. Deputy Collector (Stamp Duty). Under the provision of the Bombay Stamp Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), there is alternative remedy available to the petitioner as provided u/s 53 of the Act. Instead of approaching the competent authority u/s 53 of the Act the petitioner has preferred present petition. In that view of the matter petition does not deserve to be entertained and the petitioner is required to be relegated to the alternative remedy, however instead of making such an order, the Court considers it appropriate to dismiss the petition for non-prosecution since learned advocate for the petitioner is not present. Hence, having regard to the absence of the petitioner / petitioner''s advocate and the earlier orders which have been passed with regard to the fact that since last so many adjournments petitioner has not proceeded with the hearing of the non-prosecution.

Notice is discharged.