JUDGMENT

The petitioner, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 communication dated 13.11.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, whereby the petitioner was informed, that he is not a person authorised to receive Power of Attorney in terms of Section 17(1)(g) of the Registration (Kerala Amendment) Act, 2012. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer to receive Ext.P1 Power of Attorney dated 27.08.2020 and adjudicate the stamp duty payable on the same, receive the stamp duty payable and stamp the same in accordance with Section 18 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959.

2. On 24.11.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader sought time to get instructions.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents.

4. In the instant case, Ext.P1 power of attorney dated

27.08.2020 is one executed by Joseph Kaduthanam, S/o. Late Pothen Thomas, in favour of the petitioner, which is executed before the competent authority in Germany and attested by the German Attesting Authority. The petitioner produced Ext.P1 power of attorney before the 2nd respondent Sub Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Kottayam, under section 18 of the Kerala Stamp Act seeking to adjudicate the stamp duty payable and to impound the same after receiving the value of stamp so adjudicated. Ext.P2 is the application made by the petitioner dated 30.10.2020 in that regard. The request made in Ext.P2 stands rejected by Ext.P4 communication dated 13.11.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent, whereby the petitioner was informed that no action can be taken pursuant to the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P2 on Ext.P1 power of attorney since the petitioner is not a person authorised to receive power of attorney in terms of Clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 as amended by the Registration (Kerala Amendment) Act, 2012.

5. Section 17 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 deals with instruments executed in the State of Kerala. As per Section 17, all instruments chargeable with duty and executed by any person in the State of Kerala shall be stamped before or at the time of execution. Section 18 of the Act deals with instruments executed outside India. As per sub-section (1) of Section 18, every instrument chargeable with duty executed only out of India may be stamped within three months after it has been first received in the State of Kerala. As per sub-section (2) of Section 18, where any such instrument cannot, with reference to the description of stamp prescribed therefor, be duly stamped by a private person, it may be taken within the said period of three months to the Collector who shall stamp the same, in such manner as the Government may by rules prescribe, with a stamp of such value as the person so taking such instrument may require and pay for.

6. In Thomas C. Kunjachan v. Revenue Divisional Officer and another [2017 (4) KHC 335] a Division Bench of this Court noticed that the normal rule regarding time of stamping an instrument is specified in Section 17 of the Kerala Stamp Act. It is to be stamped before or at the time of execution. Section 18 is an exception in relation to instruments executed outside India. It provides for stamping within three months of being first received in India. However, Section 33 of the Act clearly provides that where an instrument chargeable with duty is produced before a person specified in charge of a public office, on which duty as specified is not paid, then such person shall impound and send the same to the Collector. The document having been impounded, Section 34 of the Act provides that an instrument not duly stamped cannot be admitted in evidence. But when comes to Section 39 of the Act, which clearly authorises the Collector to stamp the instrum