( 1 ) THIS petition has been preferred against the order dated 24th January,2006 passed by the Deputy Collector (Annexure ?d? to the memo of the petition) as well as against the order dated 16th June,2003 passed by the Deputy Collector (Annexure ?e? to the memo of the petition ).

( 2 ) LEARNED advocate for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 16th June,2003 passed by respondent no. 1 was never served upon petitioner and, therefore, could not preferred an appeal within a period of 90 days under section 32-B of the Bombay Stamp Act,1958 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act,1958 ).

( 3 ) IT is also vehementally submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the order passed by the Deputy Collector (Annexure ?e? to the memo of the petition) is absolutely a non-speaking order. No reasons have been assigned and straightaway conclusion has been arrived at by respondent No. 1. Learned advocate for the petitioner has also relied upon several judgments delivered by this Court whereby, it has been pointed out that if a non-speaking order passed by respondent no. 1, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. Looking to the impugned order at Annexure ?e?, it ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document