ORDER 1. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 13.10.2017 (Annexure-14) passed by the respondent No.l may kindly be quashed and set aside and further the respondents may be directed to register the instrument (Annexure-7), as sub lease deed over the stamp duty and registration charges as submitted by the petitioner." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-Company was earlier functioning in the name of M/s. Jaitex Exports Private Limited, and was allotted a plot measuring4480 square metres in the industrial area by the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited (RIICO) vide lease deed dated 15.10.1994. Learned counsel further submits that vide another lease deed dated 31.03.2001, a land measuring 1518.47 square metres was further allotted by RIICO to M/s. Jaitex Exports Private Limited; again on 31.05.2002, the RIICO further allotted a land measuring 1648.93 square metres to M/s Jaitex Exports Private Limited vide allotment letter dated 31.05.2002. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner-Company changed its name from "M/s. Jaitex Exports Private Limited" to "M/s. Vinod Ventures and Resorts Private Limited", which was duly communicated to the Registrar of Companies, and consequently, an amended fresh Certificate of Incorporation was issued on 05.08.2011 in accordance with Section 23(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the RIICO, on presentation of the supplementary lease deed, asked the petitioner-Company to pay a stamp duty of Rs.21,01,130/-and a surcharge of Rs.4,20,240/- alongwith registration fee of Rs.4,00,000/- as well as other fee to the tune of Rs.300/-, while considering the nature of the document in question as conveyance. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the charging of the duty and fees was unlawful, as it was a case of mere change in the name of the Company. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the charging of the duty and fees was unlawful, as it was a case of mere change in the name of the Company. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner-Company had filed an application under Section 35 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of1998r) before the respondent No.l seeking a direction to the Sub Registrar to register the document in question as supplementary lease deed, on account of change in the name of the petitioner-Company, with a clear stand that the legal character of the Company has not changed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Sub Registrar filed a reply before the concerned authority, while taking a stand that the supplementary lease is in fact a lease by way of assignment, and thus the duty in question shall be charged as per Article 5 of the Act of 1998. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in the present case, Article 24 of the Act of 1998 was applicable, as it was a mere change in the name of the Company. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that an alternative remedy was available to the petitioner under Section 65(1) of the Act of 1998. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in M/s. Maharaja Enclave Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10001/2018, decided on 12.04.2019), wherein this Court has held that an effective alternative remedy under Section 65(1) of the Act of 1998 was available on payment of Rs.25% of the payable amount, as per the new amended law. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, alongwith the judgment cited at the Bar, this Court finds that it is a fit case where the petitioner ought to take up the alternative remedy, as already laid down by this Court in M/s. Maharaja Enclave (supra). 12. This Court is thus of the opinion that it would be prejudicial at this stage to make any comment on merits of the case, as there is an alternative remedy as provided under Section 65(1) of the Act of 1998. 12. This Court is thus of the opinion that it would be prejudicial at this stage to make any comment on merits of the case, as there is an alternative remedy as provided under Section 65(1) of the Act of 1998. The alternative and efficacious remedy is available with only 25% of the amount to be paid as per the new amendment in the law, which has done away with the mandatory requirement of payment of 50% of the amount. This Court also finds that there is no such outright violation of the principles of natural justice or any such irresistible reason, which would take this Court to bypass the statutory alternative remedy under Section 65(1) of the Act of 1998. 13. Thus, in the best interest of justice, it would be appropriate to relegate the parties to the statutory remedy available with a clear liberty to come back to this Court again, in case either of them wishes to seek redressal, after the alternative remedy is exhausted. 14. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of.