JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

Heard Sri Mayank Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. In this bunch of writ petitions, the petitioners of the respective writ petitions are aggrieved against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), Ghaziabad in purported exercise of power under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh, whereby, deficiency has been imposed along with penalty and also interest @ 1.5% per annum and that has been directed to be recovered. The deficiency and the penalty vary in these writ petitions but in every case it is more than Rs. 10 lacs as deficiency in stamp Rs. 50,000/- as penalty.

3. The grievance raised by the petitioners is that they have been illegally denied the benefit of Government Orders/Notifications dated 12.06.2009, 26.10.2009 and 30.09.2010, whereunder, exemption has been prayed for from payment of stamp duty on the amount of duty chargeable on the consideration as set forth in each such instrument of lease. The petitioners are lease holders and second transferee from the original allottees and by the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited as well.

4. While the writ petition was entertained by the order of the high court dated 24.11.2014 in spite of the fact that the petitioner had not availed of statutory remedy of appeal under Section 56-A of the Indian Stamp Act as applicable in the State of U.P., the Court did not admit the petition but entertained it subject to the directions that petitioner shall deposit the entire amount of deficient stamp duty within four weeks from the date the order was passed by the Court i.e. 24.11.2014 and 26.11.2014 in respectively petitions. Orders passed on two different dates are identical. The order dated 24.11.2014 is reproduced hereunder:

"Three weeks' time is granted to the respondents to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List thereafter.

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 27.09.2014 passed by the respondent no. 2, Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), District Ghaziabad in Stamp Case No. 40 of 2013-14.

The petitioner has not approached the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act and the notifications relied upon have been wrongly interpreted and the case is covered under the notification. There is no disputed question of fact.

In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Government of Andhra Pradesh and another Versus P. Laxmi Devi, (2008) 4 SCC 720 and judgment dated 21.02.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 17213 of 2013, Krishna Pal Verma Versus State of U.P. and others.

Submission requires consideration.

Subject to the petitioner depositing entire amount of the deficient stamp duty within four weeks from today, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 27.09.2014 passed by the respondent no. 2, Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), District Ghaziabad in Stamp Case No. 40 of 2013-14, shall remain stayed till the next date of listing. Any amount already deposited by the petitioner towards deficient stamp duty shall be adjusted.

It is made clear that in case of default, the interim order shall automatically stand vacated."

(Emphasis supplied)

5. Nothing transpires from the record that the aforesaid order of this Court dated 24.11.2014 was ever complied with and instead, a Misc. Application was moved on 10.12.2014 bearing no. 408394 of 2014 wherein the following prayer was made:

"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may very kindly be pleased direct the registry to list the matter/aforesaid/instant writ petition on a particular date so that applying the doctrine of non-traverse, the writ may be heard on merits and the petitioner may not be tormented by the condition of pre-deposit as per the interim order dated 24.12.14 and/or pass such other and further orders as th