J. Chelameswar, C.J.

1. This is an appeal preferred by the State aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.08.2009 in W.P.(C) No.23779/2009. The first respondent herein was the petitioner in the above mentioned writ petition. He purchased an extent of 45 cents of land in various survey numbers in Kollamula village, Ranni Taluk by sale deed No.778/2002 of Ranni Sub Registrar Office for a total consideration of `1,00,000/-. The above mentioned document was duly registered by the Sub Registrar, Ranni. However, the Sub Registrar doubted the correctness of the valuation of the property and referred the case to the District Registrar. The District Registrar, in exercise of the statutory power under Section 45B(2) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, held an enquiry and came to the conclusion that the real value of the property held by the said document is `2,00,000/-, but not `1,00,000/-, as stated in the document.

Therefore, he ordered the first respondent to remit the deficit stamp duty of `10,000/- and deficit registration fee of `2,000/-.

2. Aggrieved by such an order, the first respondent made a complaint before the second respondent, the Kerala Lok Ayukta. By order dated 08.05.2006, Lok Ayukta declared that the decision of the District Registrar is null and void on the ground that the District Registrar has no jurisdiction or authority to initiate the proceedings impugned before the Lok Ayukta. The learned Lok Ayukta issued certain further directions to the Government, which are not necessary for the present purpose. It may be mentioned here that the said order is styled as a report under Section 12(1) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999.

3. Aggrieved by the said order/report, the State of Kerala and the other two appellants, who are the officers of the State, approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) No.23779/2009, in substance, challenging the above mentioned report of the Lok Ayukta on the ground that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta.

4. By the judgment under appeal, a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:-

" I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in relation to Ext.P3 order by the Upa Lok Ayukta, in so far as it relates to Complaint No.2221/2005, essentially for the reason that the amount involved in the said complaint, by way of alleged deficit stamp duty is only `10,000/-.

In these circumstances, I decline jurisdiction, leaving the contentions of the petitioners open. Writ petition is dismissed subject to the above observations."

Hence, the appeal.

5. The learned senior Government Pleader, Sri.Benny Gervasis, appearing for the appellants, submitted that, the learned Judge grossly erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of the financial stakes involved in the litigation are paltry. The learned Government Pleader submitted that, the question raised by the State is having far reaching consequences and a pure question of law and it goes to the very root of the order impugned in the writ petition and, therefore, the judgment under appeal is unsustainable.

6. Though the first respondent is served, he did not choose to appear and contest the matter when the matter is taken up.

7. Section 45B(1) of the Kerala Stamp Act authorises the registering officer to whom an instrument of transfer of property is presented for registration to refer the instrument to the Collector, if the registering officer has reason to believe that the value of the property or the consideration by the transfer, as the case may be, has not been truly set forth in the instrument. Upon such reference, the Collector held an enquiry, after giving an opportunity to the parties concerned, and determined the value of the consideration of the property, ie, the subject matter of transfer. Sub-section (2) of Section 45B obligates the person liable to pay the duty to pay the deficit amount of duty, if any,