2020 Supreme(SC) 404

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra, JJ.
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, TAMIL NADU AND ORS. – Appellants
Versus
K. BASKARAN – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2586 OF 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.15790 of 2019) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.2587 OF 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.2609 of 2019) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.2588 OF 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.17103 of 2019) WITH CIVIL APPEAL Nos.2589-2592 OF 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.6011-6014 of 2019) WITH CIVIL APPEAL Nos.2593-2597 OF 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.31633-31637 of 2018) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.2598 OF 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31632 of 2018) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.2599 OF 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.15616 of 2019) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.2600 OF 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.7722 of 2020) (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) D.No.45876 of 2018)
Decided On : 15-06-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) While entertaining an appeal, if an obvious illegality is noticed by revisional authority, it can certainly exercise suo motu power to undo the mistake, or rectify an error committed by subordinate officer or authority, subject to such restrictions as are imposed on exercise of power by Statute.
(2) Unless statute expressly or even by necessary implication restricts exercise of power, there would be no occasion to read into the power, any other limitations.
(3) There is nothing in scheme of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 which purports to restrict exercise of suo motu power under Section 47-A, and confines it to cases where knowledge of any illegality or infirmity in proceedings undertaken by subordinate officers must be gathered from sources other than through a pending appeal.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Section 47A – Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 – Rules 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11A – Assessment of stamp duty – Determination of market value of property mentioned in Sale Deed – Any report that was called for was essentially in nature of rendering assistance to appellate authority in discharge of its functions – Final order passed by appellate authority, after considering all necessary material, must be taken to be one rendered by appellate authority on its own, and there was no delegation of any essential functions vitiating exercise of power – No impropriety or invalidity touching upon exercise of power by appellate authority – View taken by High Court in that behalf set aside – Section 47-A by itself does not prescribe any timeline – If subject matter of provision as well as inter-relation of period of three months to general object of provision are considered, fixation of period has to be taken to be directory – Otherwise, very object of sub-serving public interest and securing public revenue would get defeated – Fixation of timeline of three months in Rule 7 is purely directory – In the premises, conclusion by High Court holding said provision to be mandatory is set aside and no benefit on that ground can accrue to Respondents. (Paras 17, 25 and 26)

(B) Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Section 47A – Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 – Rules 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11A – Assessment of stamp duty – Determination of market value of property mentioned in Sale Deed – While proposing to enhance market value higher than what was determined by Collector, appellate authority had put appellant-registrant to sufficient notice and had called for response with regard to proposed enhancement – It was only thereafter that exercise was undertaken to determine true market value at Rs.544/- per sq.ft. and Rs.920/- per sq.ft for documents registered in year 2005 and 2007 respectively – Adequate notice was issued to concerned persons and there was no infirmity on that count – It is nobody’s case that as on the date when proceedings were initiated in exercise of power under sub-section (6) of Section 47-A, period for preferring appeal had not expired, or that more than five years had expired after passing of order under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) – In the circumstances, none of limitations which statute has imposed upon exercise of power were present – For exercising revisional power “suo motu” or “on its motion”, concerned authority must be satisfied that an order has been passed by authority or officer subordinate to it. which may be prejudicial to interest of revenue – There is nothing in scheme of the Act which purports to restrict exercise of suo motu power under Section 47-A, and confines it to cases where knowledge of any illegality or infirmity in proceedings undertaken by subordinate officers must be gathered from sources other than through a pending appeal – Unless statute expressly or even by necessary implication restricts exercise of power, there would be no occasion to read into the power, any other limitations – Decisions of High Court under appeal set aside orders passed by appellate authority restored. (Paras 27, 30, 35, 36 and 37)

(C) Administrative Law – Exercise of Administrative Power – A statutory functionary exercising a power cannot be said to have delegated his functions merely by deputing a responsible and competent official to enquire and report, as that is ordinary mode of exercise of any administrative power – If a statutory authority empowers a delegate to undertake preparatory work, and to take an initial decision in matters entrusted to it, but retains in its own hands power to approve or disapprove decision after it has been taken, decision will be held to have been validly made if degree of control maintained by authority is close enough for the decision to be regarded as authority’s own – Even in cases of sub-delegation, so long as essential function of decision making is performed by delegate, burden of performing ancillary and clerical task need not be shouldered by primary delegate and it is not necessary that primary delegate himself should perform ministerial acts as well – Practical necessities or exigencies of administration require that decision-making authority who has been conferred with statutory power, be able to delegate tasks when situation so requires – Practical necessities and exigencies of administration demand that appellate authority must be able to delegate certain tasks such as collecting information after causing inspection – So long as essential function of considering all necessary factors and inputs and thereafter arriving at an informed decision is done by appellate authority, burden of performing ancillary tasks need not be shouldered by appellate authority. (Paras 14 and 15)

Facts of the case:

These eight appeals raise common questions touching upon the interpretation of Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 as amended from time to time.

Findings of the Court:

Unless the statute expressly or even by necessary implication restricts the exercise of power, there would be no occasion to read into the power, any other limitations. The High Court has not found the exercise of power to be invalid on any count, nor was any such submission advanced before the High Court. High Court had simply gone on the existence of power rather than on the exercise of power.

Result : Appeals allowed.