Seva Nivrutta Karmachari Sangh Through Its Chairman Shri Ramesh Son of Annasa Jayade Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- bombay stamp act, 1958. schedule 1, article 36: [y.r. meena, cj & d.a. mehta & a.s. dave, jj] deed of mortgage liability to pay stamp duty held, any instruments in respect of transactions, relating to loans and advances, loans and mortgages, cash credit or overdraft bonds, agreements of pawn or pledge and letters of hypothecation executed by farmers for agricultural and land development purposes in favour of all commercial bank etc. are entitled to remission of entire duty chargeable under the stamp act with effect on and from 1.4.1979 under government notification dated 23.3.1979. thus, where loan was granted by bank of india under agricultural finance scheme towards purchase of air compressors, drilling rods and other accessories. use of the air compressors, drilling rods and other accessories in case of applicant who is a farmer can only be for purpose of drilling a bore-well for purpose of irrigation in process of carrying on agricultural activities. thus, it is apparent that loan was availed of by applicant-farmer for agricultural and land development purposes because a bore-well would go to increase the utility of agricultural land by ensuring round the year irrigation. the instrument in question would therefore fall within scope of complete remission granted to instrument of mortgage under government notification dated 23.3.1979 and hence not liable to stamp duty under article 36 of schedule i of the act. - the petitioner, however, has failed to account for on the basis of information sought under right to information act.a.h. joshi, j.1. leave to amend. amendment be carried out forthwith. rule. rule is made returnable forthwith. heard by consent of the parties.2. the petitioner's grievance is very limited.3. petitioner is an association of retired employees formerly serving with respondent no. 2.4. the case proceeds on admitted facts, namely:[a] the municipal council has resolved to extend the benefits of fifth pay commission to its employees. as such petitioner's members are entitled for payment of arrears in the pay and allowances.[b] municipal council, the respondent no. 2, has been paying the arrears in installments and dues are still unpaid.[c] it is also a common ground that respondent no. 5 has issued directions asking the municipal councils that fifty per cent of the octroi reimbursement quantum should be paid towards arrears of benefits arising out of recommendations of fifth commission to retired employees.[d] the 50% quantum indicated above is inadequate to meet the liability towards arrears of fifth pay commission for fully satisfying the arrears.[e] petitioner's contention is that apart from octroi reimbursement, municipal council has income from various other sources, and instead of depending on the said sole source of amount of reimbursement of octroi received from the state, the municipal council should pay from its other resources.5. the respondent no. 2 has filed affidavit denying resource for lump-sum payment of arrears and has expressed the dependence only on grant, money coming under the head of 'reimbursement of octroi' , and has prayed for dismissal of writ petition.6. petitioner has filed a rejoinder giving details of receipts by municipal council under various heads secured under the right to information act. the petitioner, however, has failed to account for on the basis of information sought under right to information act. it is not the case/plea of the petitioner that where the money recovered by municipal council is unjustly or illegally spent or appropriated.7. perusal of the petition discloses that petitioner's grievance is not that the municipality has resources, yet it is not paying.8. petitioner has disclosed that after spending for essential expenses, such as sanitation and primary health and other imperative services to be rendered by the municipal council, there is adequate surplus which could be utilized towards payment of arrears.9. in the aforesaid background, present petition turns out to be a claim for payment of arrears, disbursement whereof is contingent upon resource.10. it is not in dispute that resource does not barely mean that money is received. rather, it would mean the revenue collections as would remain after deduction of costs of essential services and expenses.11. it is, thus, demonstrated, not denied and clear that municipal council is not able to spare additional funds from its resources and hence has to depend on reimbursement of octroi, which amount too carries a tag of 50% out of it to be spared for the arrears of fifth pay commission. thus, the amount from which arrears if fifth pay commission are to be paid, is defined. municipal council has also committed to adhere to the same in terms of directions received by municipal administration.12. in this background, it is not a case where there is a case of existence of right, followed by denial. present is, therefore, not a case which is fit for issuance of a writ of mandamus. whatever has come on record, and is acted upon, is adequate.13. in the result, rule is discharged. parties are directed to bear own costs.