SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1950 Supreme(Mad) 176

MADRAS HIGH COURT
RAJAMANNAR,BALAKRISHNA AYYAR
In reV.S.Shanmuga Mudaliar
Versus
.
Civil Misc. Petn. No. 3877 of 1950
Decided On : 19 April, 1950

Advocates Appeared:
N.R. Raghavachariar - for Petitioner.

The main legal point established is that quasi-judicial tribunals like the Board of Revenue are only required to provide sufficient opportunity for parties to state their case, and the absence of an oral hearing does not necessarily violate principles of natural justice.

Headnote:

Certiorari and Mandamus - Opportunity for Oral Hearing - Stamp Duty and Partition Deed - Refusal to Interfere - Discretion of Board of Revenue

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari and mandamus to challenge the order of the Board of Revenue refusing to interfere with the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheyyar, regarding stamp duty and penalty on a document deemed a partition deed. The petitioner argued that the Board did not provide an opportunity for oral hearing.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Board of Revenue was not obligated to provide an oral hearing as there was no such requirement in the Act or Rules. The petitioner had been given the opportunity to state their case in the revision petition, and the Board's decision without an oral hearing did not violate principles of natural justice. The court dismissed the application for a writ of certiorari and mandamus.

Issues: The issues involved the duty of the Board of Revenue to provide an oral hearing, the discretion of the Board to refer questions on stamp duty, and the statutory obligations of the Board under the Stamp Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Board of Revenue was not required to provide an oral hearing and that the discretion to refer questions on stamp duty was within the Board's purview. It was established that the Board had not failed to perform any statutory duty, and thus a writ of mandamus could not be issued.

Final Decision: The application was dismissed by the court.

Judgement

Rajamannar, C.J. :- In this application the petitioner seeks both for a writ of certiorari and for a writ of mandamus. The certiorari is sought to quash the order of the Board of Revenue refusing to interfere on behalf of the petitioner with the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheyyar levying stamp duty and penalty on a document which the officer held to be a partition deed. The only ground on which this writ is sought is that the Board did not give an opportunity to the petitioner to be orally heard. There is nothing in the Act or in the Rules framed thereunder which enjoins on the Board the duty to give an oral hearing to a person who invokes their revisional jurisdiction. All that quasi judicial Tribunals like the Board of Revenue have to do is to give sufficient opportunity to the persons who approach them for the exercise of their jurisdiction to state their case. Local Government Board v. Alridge, (1915) A. C. 120 : (84 L. J. K. B. 72). This opportunity has been given to the petitioner, because presumably he has stated all his grounds of objection to the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer in his revision petition. He is not entitled as of right to be heard and it cannot be said that the order of the Board passed without hearing him is contrary to principles of natural justice. We must, therefore, refuse to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order.

2. There is also a prayer for the issue of a writ of mandamus to refer the question of the liability of the document to stamp duty to this Court under S. 57, Stamp Act. Before such a writ can issue, it must be established that the Board of Revenue has failed to perform a duty which was incumbent on it under the statute. Under S. 57 it is left to the discretion of the Board to refer or not to refer any question as to the stamp duty payable on a document. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Board has failed to exercise any statutory duty. A writ of mandamus cannot, therefore, issue from this Court.

3. The application is, therefore, dismissed.

Application dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top