By the Court.—Heard Sri Manu Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the order dated 5.1.2006 of the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), Ghaziabad and consequential recovery whereby a deficiency of Rs. 19.87 crores has been found in payment of stamp duty in a deed of assignment in favour of the petitioner and further a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh has been levied.

3. Several issues have been raised in this writ petition including the issue that the pre-condition of deposit of one third of the amount for challenging the matter before the appellate authority is an impediment as the amount sought to be imposed on the petitioner as deficiency is huge. It has further been submitted that this was an assignment for the realization from the secured assets of the defaulters where the purpose is a speedy and expeditious realization of defaulted amount, whereas the imposition of such a condition on the assignment deed restrains the petitioner from proceeding to recover the amount thereby defeating the purpose of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

4. A legal submission has also been raised to the effect that such imposition could not have been made keeping in view the fact that there is a statutory bar in invoking of any such proceedings beyond a period of four years and consequently the impugned order deserves to be quashed. Further a notification exists in the State of U.P. By virtue whereof the stamp duty is sufficient. The prayer is also to quash the consequential citation of recovery issued by the respondents.

5. We have heard the learned Standing Counsel and we are of the view that the petitioner has a remedy of either filing an appeal or a revision keeping in view the provisions of the Stamp Act as applicable in the State of U.P. The question as to whether the extent of pre-deposit is onerous or not came to be examined by the Apex Court in the case of Har Devi Asnani v. State of Rajasthan and others, (2011) 14 SCC 160, where it has been held that fifty percent of pre-deposit as required in the State of Rajasthan for filing an appeal is constitutionally and legally valid. The issue as to whether a pre-deposit is compulsory or not came to be examined by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gaurav Aseem Avtej v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P. Allahabad and others, 2013(1) ADJ 442, where the question referred was answered also holding that any such pre-deposit is constitutionally valid but at the same time it was clarified that the proviso of Sub-section 1-A of Section 56 of the Stamp Act will apply only in cases where an appeal is preferred under Sub-section (1-A) of Section 56 of the Stamp Act and its scope is restricted to the appeal only. It was further held that if a revision is preferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 56 of the Stamp Act, then there is no requirement of the deposit of one third of the disputed amount of deficient stamp duty including interest or penalty if any while filing an application for grant of interim relief.

6. The law having been clarified we find no reason for this writ petition to be entertained in the extra ordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the aforesaid speedy and efficacious remedies are available to the petitioner and that have been held to be valid by this Court.

7. The petitioner is not put to any prejudice if the statutory remedies under the Stamp Act are available. All the questions that have been raised in the present writ petition can be conveniently raised and suitable orders can always be passed by the competent authority. There is nothing exceptional in the present case so as to avoid the said remedies.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner then urged that if the writ petition has been entertained and the counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents to which a rejoinder-affidavit has been filed, the writ petition should not at this stage be