Point of Law: In the performance of this duty, if the authority in whom the discretion is vested under the statute, does not act independently and passes an order under the instructions and orders of another authority, the Court would intervene in the matter, quash the order and issue a mandamus to that authority to exercise its own discretion.

ORDER :

1. By way of this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, t he petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-

“9(A) Be pleased to admit and allow this petition;

(B) Be please to issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 15.01.2021 passed by the Deputy Collector Valuation Department, Bharuch in Stamp/Section- 33/Order/2021/98 in the interest of justice;

(C ) Be pleased to say the implementation of the judgment and order dated 15.01.2021 passed by the Deputy Collector, Valuation Department, in Stamp/Section-33/Order/2021/98 till the final disposal of this petition to secure the interest of justice;

(D) …….”

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner – Company has changed its name from United Phosphorous Limited to UPL Limited and the Registrar of Companies has issued a certificate to that extent on 11.10.2019. This change in name is not material to the present controversy, but it is mentioned just for the sake of record. There is a plot situated in Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (for short “GIDC“), bearing no. 750 , admeasuring 404255 sq.mtr., at Jhagadia Industrial Estate and came to be allotted on 04.06.1994 and transferred the said plot property on 17.05.1995 to one Search Chem Industries Limited by way of a registered (lease) deed nos. 447 and 449 on 29.07.197. In an Extra Ordinary General Meeting held on 02.05.2003 in Search Chem Industrial Limited, it has been resolved to change the name of the Company to United Phosphorous Limited and a fresh Certificate was obtained from the office of Registrar of Companies under Section 231 of the Companies Act, 1956 on 15.10.2003. Subsequently, on 27.11.2003, the petitioner-Company filed an application before GIDC informing about the change of the name and in reference to the said application, GIDC replied on 19.12.2003 in view of para 15 of the said letter of GIDC, it was made merely incumbent by GIDC on the petitioner – Company to execute a deed of assignment/declaration for change of name of the Company. As a result of this, a declaration deed came to be executed by the Company and in pursuance to that an order came to be issued by the GIDC on 26.12.2004, incorporating the change of name of the Company. The petitioner – Company by affixing a stamp duty of Rs.100/- executed the deed of declaration for change in the Company’s name and the said deed was registered at no. 834 before the Sub-Registrar, Jhagadia. The said deed came to be impounded by Sub-Registrar, Jhagadia for deficit of stamp duty and then the said deed came to be referred to the office of the Deputy Collector Valuation Organization, Bharuch on 16.02.2004 whereupon, preliminary notices were issued on 08.10.2014, 04.06.2015, 29.09.2020 and final show cause notice came to be issued on 16.10.2020 and 12.11.2020. The Deputy Collector Valuation Organization, Bharuch, in the final notice dated 16.10.2020 issued under Section 39(1)(b) of the Stamp Act, relied upon one circular dated 04.09.2001 bearing Circular No. 183-2009-3038 and ultimately passed an order on 15.01.2021 in exercise of power under Section 39(1)(b) of the Stamp Act and, therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that this order has been passed after almost a period of 17 years from impounding the documents under Section 33 of the Stamp Act. The case of the petitioner – Company is that the respondent-authority has acted beyond the jurisdiction and on the contrary, to the powers vested in the statute. It is the case of the petitioner that the show cause notice dated 16.10.2020, is contrary to the subject matter involved in the impugned judgment and order dated 15.01.2021. According to the petitioner, the Stamp Duty authority has misinterpreted the provisions of law and wrongly considered the deed of change of name as “instrument” of transfer of lease under Article 57 to Schedule-1 of the Stamp Act and as such, by