The determination by the Collector under Section 31 of the Kerala Stamp Act was held to be a quasi-judicial determination, and the court excused the delay in bringing the petition due to the circumstances of the case.

RAMAN NAYAR, C.J. :- On the 25th May, 1967, the United Commercial Bank, Mavoor (for short, the Bank)

executed what has been called a letter of guarantee in favour of the President of India on non-judicial stamp paper of the value of Rs. 40.25 - a copy thereof has been marked as Ex. P-1 in the writ petition. By that instrument, the Bank guaranteed, to the tune of Rs. 12,37,250/- the payment to the Central Government by one of the Bank's customers, the Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd., Mavoor (for short, the Company), the rupee equivalent of foreign exchange made available to it by the Central Government for the import of certain goods. The Central Government was insisting that the instrument should be certified as duly stamped by the competent authority, and, therefore, the Bank presented it before the Additional Personal Assistant to the District Collector of Kozhikode, a Collector within the definition in Section 2 (c) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (Having been duly appointed as such thereunder - we shall hereafter refer to him as the Collector but he is not to be confused with the District Collector) for adjudication under Section 31 of the Act.

2. By his proceedings Ex P-2 dated the 22nd July, 1967 (the reference is to the exhibits marked in the writ petition) the Collector held that the instrument was a bond within the meaning of Article 13 of the schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, and determined the duty payable thereon as Rs. 23,264.95. He requested the Bank to pay the deficit duty of Rs. 23,224.70 as also the adjudication fee which he fixed at Rs. 5/-. This order, it would appear, was made without giving the Bank an opportunity of being heard; and the Bank being aggrieved by the order submitted the petition Ex, P-3 dated the 1st August, 1967, to the District Collector contending that the instrument was not a bond but an agreement chargeable with duty of only Rs. 2.25 and requested the District Collector to revise the order of the Collector in exercise of his powers under clause third of Section 3 of Madras Regulation VII of 1828. The District Collector rejected this petition on the 11th August, 1967 on the ground that the Madras Regulation invoked by the Bank was not in force.

Thereupon, the Bank submitted a revision petition, Ex. P-4 dated the 16th September, 1967, to the Board of Revenue, an authority specified by the Government under sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the Kerala Stamp Act as an authority to whose control the powers exercisable by a Collector under Chapter IV and Chapter V and under clause (a) of the first proviso to Section 27 are, in all cases, subject. This petition was dismissed by the Board by its proceedings, Ex. P-5 dated the 11th September, 1968, on the ground that Section 31, occurring in Chapter II of the Act, was not one of the provisions in respect of which revisional power was given to the Board by Section 54. Then, by Ex. P-6 dated the 26th October, 1968, the Bank and the Company jointly petitioned the Government praying "that the Government may be pleased to either decide the issue suo motu or in case of doubt refer the matter to the Hon'ble High Court under Section 55 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, for its decision so as to fix the proper stamp duty on the impugned (sic) document."

The Government after hearing counsel for the Bank and the Company came to the conclusion that the instrument was not a bond falling within Article 13, or a security bond falling within Article 49, of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act but was a contract of guarantee chargeable as an agreement under Article 5 (c) in which case the duty would be only Rs. 2.25, a view with which, we might mention, the learned Advocate-General appearing before us on behalf of the Government concurs. (He has also drawn our attention to the second item in Article 37 of Schedule I to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 "Letter of guarantee, See Agreement (No. 5)" which indicates that a letter of guarantee is nothing more th