ORDER : The petitioner in W.P. 415 of 1961 was a private limited company. It had borrowed various amounts from the Reliance Bank of India Ltd. and had mortgaged certain immovable properties to that bank. By a power-of-attorney executed by the petitioner on 13-8-1957, the bank was authorised to sell the immovable properties. The document was stamped with stamps of the value of Rs. 11-4-0. On presentation of the power-of-attorney for registration, the Joint Sub Registrar called for particulars of the debts due to the bank. Thereafter, the Joint Sub-Registrar impounded the document. The District Registrar in his proceedings dated 9-10-1960 passed an order to the effect that the document numbered as P. III of 1957 was a power of attorney for consideration, made out of the amount of the debts owing to the Rank, and was chargeable with a stamp duly of Rs. 7138-80 under Art. 48(e) of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act as amended. He called upon the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 as well. The correctness of the District Registrar's interpretation of the relevant provision was disputed. Subsequently, however, the Joint Registrar issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to pay the deficit duly and penalty.

2. In like manner, another document numbered as P. 110/57 was impounded and deficit duly and penalty of Rs. 6954-60 and Rs. 10 were demanded.

3. The petitioner thereafter moved the Board of Revenue under S. 56(1) of the Act. The Board of Revenue ordered stay of collection of stamp duty and penalty and posted the petition for hearing on 6-1-1961. But even in advance of that date, the Board made an order dated 17-12-1960 staling that as the District Registrar "has the powers of the Collector under the Stamp Act and has already passed orders" the Board could not interfere under S. 56(1) of the Act.

4. These petitions have been filed under Art. 226 praying for the issue of writs of certiorari to quash the orders of the District Registrar and joint Registrar. The complaint of the petitioner is that it has not been afforded an adequate opportunity of substantiating its contentions and that the view taken by the authorities referred to on the interpretation of S. 48(e) of the Indian Stamp Act is erroneous in law. The petitioner claims that it has no other remedy but to approach this court.

5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it is stated that on the presentation of the document, as it appeared to the Joint Registrar that the document was a power-of-attorney for consideration, he made a reference to the Inspector General of Registration. The Inspector General of Registration made a reference to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue adjudicated the document as one falling under Art. 48(e) of Schedule I by its order dated 23-1-1960. Thereafter, the Joint Registrar took up the matter and issued a notice to the petitioner acting on the strength of the Board's view, he called upon the petitioner to show cause why the document should not be adjudicated as a power of attorney for consideration, the consideration being the amount of debts due from the petitioner to the power of attorney holder, the bank. The objections put forward by the petitioner were overruled. As has already been stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petition filed by the petitioner under S. 56(1) of the Act was rejected.

6. It is also contended in the counter affidavit that the determination of the nature of the document is not affected by any error in the interpretation of the relevant provision.

7. It seems clear from what has been stated above that when the Board purported to adjudicate upon the nature of the document on a reference made to it by the Inspector General of Registration and made the order on 23-1-1960, it gave no notice of any kind to the petitioner. The Board's opinion in the matter was communicated to the concerned lower authorities and acting upon that opinion, the Joint Regist

Click Here to Read the rest of this document