HC seeks replies from admin on overcharging of stamp papers

 

 

The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, has issued notices to eight State authorities and directed them to file their replies within four weeks in a case related to the overcharging of stamp papers. The division bench of Justice Nitin Sambre and Justice Sachin Deshmukh gave the directions on Wednesday after a public interest litigation (PIL) was filed by Amicus Curiae Rahul Ghuge, following the court’s suo motu action based on a news report published in ‘The Hitavada’ on July 9. The petition highlights that stamp papers of Rs 100 and Rs 500 denominations are being sold at much higher rates than allowed by law. It alleges that some notary vendors and unauthorised sellers are creating an artificial shortage of stamp papers in the market, forcing citizens to pay extra.

 

This practice is said to be affecting common people, especially those from rural areas, and even legal professionals. The respondents in the case include the State of Maharashtra through its Revenue Secretary, the Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue, Stamp Duty & Registration), the Inspector General of Registration, the Deputy Inspector General (Registration) Nagpur Division, the Collector of Nagpur, the Commissioner of Police Nagpur, the Joint District Registrar and Collector of Stamps Nagpur, and the Treasury Officer, Nagpur. The petition refers to earlier court rulings and existing laws under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, which regulate the supply, sale, and pricing of stamp papers. It points out that the Notaries Act, 1952, does not allow notaries to sell stamp papers.

 

The petition also draws attention to infamous Telgi Stamp Paper Scam and suggests that similar exploitation may again be happening due to loopholes in the system. The PIL seeks the formation of a high-level committee to investigate overcharging, the introduction of modern technology to monitor stamp sales, and strict action against those violating licensing conditions. It also recommends the expansion of e-stamping facilities to prevent such malpractice in the future. The High Court has taken the matter seriously and directed all the respondents to give detailed responses within four weeks.