Point of law:
A preliminary objection has been urged on behalf of the respondents that in a petition under Article 32, only where it is shown that there is a violation of fundamental right that the validity of the legislation or of the legislative competence can be raised and determined, but in these cases as there is no violation of Articles 14, 26, 29 and 30 of the Constitution the petitioners ought not be allowed to challenge the vires of the Act on the ground of the competence of the Legislature to enact the impugned law. This question has been dealt with fully in the batch of petitions in which we have just pronounced judgment, where we had also considered the contentions of the learned Advocate General of Punjab and Shri Tarkunde, the learned Counsel for Respondent 2 in this behalf and hence we do not propose again to reiterate the reasons in support of the conclusion that a petition under Article 32 in which petitioners make out a prima facie case that their fundamental rights are either threatened or violated will be entertained by this Court and that it is not necessary for any person who considers himself to be aggrieved to wait till the actual threat has taken place. (emphasis supplied). On the other objection that the Arya Samaj is neither a linguistic or religious minority nor is it a religious denomination we held that it was unnecessary to go into the question of whether it is a separate religious denomination for the purpose of Article 26(1)

JUDGMENT

Ajay Bhanot, J.

1. I have the pleasure of reading the opinion rendered by my learned Brother on the Bench. I am in respectful disagreement with the same. Calling for a counter affidavit does not require elaborate reasons. But in view of the lengthy and erudite opinion of my learned Brother, I am constrained with all humility to set out some reasons why calling for counter affidavits from the respondents is necessary to subserve the ends of justice in this case.

2. Heard Shri N. C. Rajvanshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Vishesh Rajvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sanjay Goswami, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents and Shri Sumit Kakkar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited.

3. The opinion will be structured in the following sequence:

I. The stamp duty as a Levy and the U.P. EStamping Rules, 2013:

II. Facts: i. Agencies engaged in collection of stamp duty and their functions ii. Proposed agreement

III. Legal issues and analysis of facts in light of such legal perspectives : i. Public functions and concept of authorities ii. Public law and contracts iii. Fundamental rights iv. Locus standi and maintainability

IV. Directions

I. Stamp Duty as a Levy and the U.P. EStamping Rules:

4. Stamp duty is levied on various transactions under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The stamp duty so levied is a compulsory exaction made from the citizens upon happening of the taxing event. The levy, measure, exaction and collection of the stamp duty like any other tax is a sovereign function of the State.

5. With the introduction of estamping system, the Uttar Pradesh EStamping Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of 2013”) were promulgated. The Rules of 2013 effectuate the purpose of the Act. Validly framed Rules are an integral part of the parent statute. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Udai Singh Dagar & Ors vs Union Of India, reported at 2007 (10) SCC 306 held:

“75…..inasmuch as a legislative Act must be read with the regulations framed. A subordinate legislation, as is well known, when validly framed, becomes a part of the Act.”

6. Some of the relevant provisions of the Rules of 2013 are being extracted hereinunder for ease of reference and to facilitate the discussion.

7. Rule 2 of the Rules of 2013 is the definition clause, and provides for various definitions including agreement, appointing authority, Authorized Collection Centre, Central Recordkeeping Agency :

“2. Definitions.— (1) In these rules unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,—

(a) "Act" means the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Act No. 2 of 1899), as amended from time to time in its application to Uttar Pradesh;

(b) "Agreement" means the agreement executed between the Appointing Authority and the Central Record keeping Agency describing the terms and conditions of appointment of the Central Recordkeeping Agency;

(c) "Appointing authority" means the Government or the Commissioner of Stamps, authorized by the Government in this behalf by notification in the Gazette for any specific purpose under these rules;

(d) "Approved Intermediaries" means the Central Record keeping Agency and the Authorized Collection Centers including all its offices and branches as appointed with the prior approval of the Government to act as an intermediary between the Government and the Stamp duty payer for collection of Stamp duty under these rules;

(e) "Authorized Collection Center" means an agent appointed by the Central Record keeping Agency, with the prior approval of the Government, to act as an intermediary between the Central Recordkeeping Agency and the Stamp duty payer for collection of Stamp duty;

(f) "Central Recordkeeping Agency" means an agency appointed by the appointing authority for computerization of Stamp duty Administration System in the State or in such places as the State Government may determine from tim