HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?A.F.R. Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20413 of 2011 Petitioner :- Raghvendra Nayak Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- K.K. Dubey Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Heard Sri K.K.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.M.Sahai, learned Standing Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of all the respondents.
On earlier occasion, learned Standing Counsel was permitted to obtain instructions. He has obtained instructions, specially with regard to the Government Order dated 12.1.2003. On the basis of the instructions so received he agrees for final disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage without entering into any controversy by filing counter affidavit.
In respect of a sale deed dated 29.6.2010 proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated on the basis of the inspection report dated 31.8.2010. The Assistant Commissioner Stamp vide order dated 12.11.2010 determined the market value and the deficiency in stamp duty. The petitioner on acquiring knowledge of the said order filed application dated 23.11.2010 for recall of the above order on the ground that it was passed ex-parte without serving any notice upon him. The application was rejected on 26.11.2010. Petitioner's appeal against the orders dated 25.9.2010 and 26.11.2010 was dismissed by the Commissioner of the Division vide order dated 10.3.2011.
Aggrieved by the above orders, petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that initial order dated 12.11.2010 was passed ex-parte and his application for recall/setting aside of ex-parte order was rejected in view of general direction of the Commissioner Stamp contained in his letter No.81/Stamp/642 K dated 12.1.2003.
Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of the instructions received contended that the above general directions have been clarified vide letter dated 7.3.2005.
The clarification in this regard is not material.
A copy of the letter No.81/Stamp/642 K dated 12.1.2003 has been brought on record by the petitioner by means of supplementary affidavit. The aforesaid letter contains direction of the general nature to all the authorities under the Stamp Act not to entertain any application for recall/review of the order and to reject the same, if filed by any party. It may be noted that the authorities under the Stamp Act exercise quasi judicial functions and any direction of general nature issued by any superior authority on administrative side in relation to discharge of his such functions amounts interference in the judicial functioning of the authorities.
In this view of the matter, such directions as issued by the letter dated 12.1.2003 are wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be approved of by this Court rather it requires condemnation. The aforesaid letter No.81/Stamp/642 K dated 12.1.2003 as well as consequential order as such are liable to be ignored and treated as nonest. The authorities are supposed to decide whatever applications are moved before them strictly in accordance with law, without being governed by any such directions of any higher authority issued in administrative capacity.
In the instant case, the basic order dated 12.11.2010 is an ex-parte order as alleged by the petitioner. Therefore, his application to recall the same or to set aside the said ex-parte order is to be considered on merits, without being influenced by any administrative direction, as contained in the above letter No.81/Stamp/642 K dated 12.1.2003.
Sri Sahai submits that in view of the fact that the above directions have been declared nonest, the application of the petitioner dated 23.11.2010 will be considered afresh in accordance with law.
Since the application has not been specifically dealt with in the light of Rule 9 of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Properties) Rules and has been rejected impliedly pursuant to the above general directions, the appellate order dated 10.3.2011 as well as the order dated 26.11.2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Stamp are hereby quashed.
The Assistant Commissioner is directed to consider and decide the petitioner's recall application dated 23.11.2010 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order The writ petition stands allowed.
Sri K.M.Sahai, learned Standing Counsel may be provided a certified copy of this order free of costs by the Registry.
Order Date :- 15.4.2011 brizesh