An order affecting the rights of parties must be supported by reasons and cannot be based on mere ipse dixit or opinion of an Authority.

ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.

1. By consent of the parties the appeal and the stay application are taken up together for hearing and disposal.

2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 24 November, 2017 passed by a Learned Single Judge in WP No. 23428 (W) of 2017 (Visveshwaran Suresh Kumar & Anr.-vs.-The State of West Bengal & Ors.)

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company became entitled to purchase a property situate in Hyderabad in a Court proceeding. A Nomination Agreement was executed between the appellant company and the writ petitioner/respondent no. 2 company (in short ‘SBPL’) wherein the appellant nominated SBPL to receive conveyance of the said property in its name. Disputes and differences arose between the appellant and SBPL which were referred to arbitration in pursuance of the arbitration clause contained in the Nomination Agreement. Before the Arbitral Tribunal a point was taken by the appellant that the Nomination Agreement was insufficiently stamped and as such was liable to be impounded under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The said agreement was, in fact, impounded by the learned Arbitrator and sent to the Collector of Stamp Revenue, Kolkata for valuation of the stamp duty payable thereon and also penalty. The Collector assessed the stamp duty including penalty, in the sum of approximately Rs. 11.26 crores applying Art. 23 of Schedule 1A to the Indian Stamp Act.

4. SBPL and its Chief Executive Officer filed a writ petition being WP No. 23308 (W) of 2017 in this court challenging such assessment of stamp duty by the Collector. The writ petition was affirmed on 1 September, 2017.

5. On 4 September, 2017 SBPL and its Vice President filed another writ petition being the writ petition on which the order impugned herein was passed. On 5 September, 2017 SBPL sought leave of the Ld. Single Judge to withdraw WP No. 23308(W) of 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘first writ petition’). The first writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

6. The appellant herein filed an application for addition of party before the Ld. Single Judge and got itself impleaded as a party respondent in WP No. 23428 (W) of 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the second writ petition’).

7. Before the Ld. Single Judge at the final hearing of the second writ petition, the appellant herein attacked the maintainability of the said writ petition. It was submitted that the first writ petition was withdrawn without obtaining leave to file afresh on the self-same cause of action. Hence, the second writ petition was hit by the provision of O. XXIII R. 1 of the CPC, 1908 and was not maintainable. It was further submitted that SBPL was guilty of suppression of material facts inasmuch as in the second writ petition it was not stated that there was an earlier writ petition which was withdrawn without any leave being granted to file a second writ petition on the self-same cause of action.

8. The Ld. Judge held that the O. XXIII R. 1 of the CPC did not apply to the facts of this case. The second writ petition was already on record when the first writ petition was withdrawn. The Ld. Single Judge referred to the Apex Court decisions in the cases of Vimlesh Kumari Kulshrestha -vs.- Sambhajirao & Anr., (2008) 5 SCC 58 and Veerandra Kumar Goutam & Ors.-vs.-Karuna Nidhan Upadhyay & Ors., (2016) 14 SCC 18 which were cited by the Learned Counsel for the writ petitioners. The Ld. Judge held that the second writ petition was maintainable. On merits, the Ld. Judge held that the Collector’s order dated 30 August, 2017 assessing the stamp duty in respect of the said agreement at Rs. 11,26,39,488/- was an unreasoned order. The basis on which the market value of the property in question had been arrived at was not discussed in the assessment order. An order affecting the rights of parties is required to be informed with reasons. Accordingly, the learned Judge set aside the impugned assessment order and remanded the matter back