JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shashi Kant Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Petitioner-M/S Beston Skyvision Private Ltd. through Shri Anurag Srivastava claiming to be power of attorney holder of Shri Prabhadass Nathani, is before this Court assailing the order impugned dated 26.4.2008 passed by the Additional Collector (F/R), Gautambudh Nagar/third respondent in Case No. 261 of 2007-08 and 331 of 2007-08, under Section 47A/33 Stamp Act, 1899, wherein deficiency of stamp duty along with fine, total Rs. 40,11,580/-has been levelled against the petitioner as well as the revisional order dated 12.3.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue/C.C.R.A. Meerut in Case No. 01471/2019, under Section 56 (1) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 by which the revision was dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay.

3. The record in question reflects that the Sub-Registrar, Gautam Budh Nagar had submitted report dated 1.9.2007 regarding certain deficiency of stamp and consequently proceeding has been drawn against the petitioner bearing No.331 of 2007-08, under Section 47A and 33 of Indian Stamp Act(State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. M/S Beston Skyvision Private Ltd. Through Prabhadas Naithani). In the said proceeding notice was served upon the petitioner and admittedly he contested the proceeding. Finally the order impugned has been passed by the third respondent on 26.4.2008, wherein deficiency of stamp duty along with fine, total Rs.40,11,580/-has been levelled against the petitioner. The revision was preferred after inordinate delay of more than 8 years. The same was dismissed by the revisional authority vide order dated 12.3.2020 on the ground of delay and laches. The revisional authority has clearly proceeded to observe that no satisfactory explanation has been averred regarding day-to-day laches and on account of inordinate delay the revision was rejected.

4. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Director of the company had authorised one of his employee to assail the validity of the said order. Unfortunately in response thereof the employee neither engaged any counsel nor has filed any appeal/ revision. Therefore, disciplinary action has been taken against him and his services had been dispensed with. He submits that the said situation was beyond the control of the petitioner company and the laches are bonafide. He submits that on account of laches or inaction on the part of an employee, the employer should not suffer.

5. Per contra learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. No satisfactory explanation of day-to-day laches has been averred in the writ petition. In most casual manner the revision had been preferred. In support of his submissions he has placed reliance on paragraphs 3, 17 and 18 of the writ petition and submitted that the averment itself clearly reflects the casual approach of the petitioner while preferring the revision and present writ petition.

6. Heard rival submissions and perused the record.

7. The reasons assigned for delay in preferring the appeal/ revision has been averred in paragraphs 3, 17 and 18 of the writ petition, which are reproduced as under:-

"3. That the petitioner is Power of Attorney holder of Prabhadas Naithani and he has filed the revision before the respondent no. 1 on the basis of power of attorney. The said authorization invoke by judgment of Writ A No. 1974 of 2015 Smt. Rashmi Bhatiya And Another the Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. and also filed the present writ petition before this Hon'ble Court.

17. That the director of M/s Beston Skyvision Private Ltd. has authorised to one his employee to file the appeal/revision before the Court with engaged the counsel and challenging the order dated 26.04.2008 before the appropriate Court, but neither he engaged any counsel nor he has filed the case nor he given any status about the case therefore, the d