Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Prahallad Maity vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 24 March, 2011
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
1
In the High Court at Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas.
W.P. No. 4212 (W) of 2011
Prahallad Maity
v.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr Bhaskar Chandra Manna, advocate, for the petitioner. Ms Seba Roy and Ms
Soma Kar Ghosh, advocates, for the State.
Heard on: March 24, 2011.
Judgment on: March 24, 2011.
The Court: - The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated February 25, 2011
is seeking a mandamus commanding the registering officer concerned under the
Registration Act, 1908 to accept the deficit stamp and return the document that
was presented for registration as back as 1991.
The document was presented before the A.D.S.R., Contai, Purba
Medinipur. The registering officer gave the petitioner a receipt dated April 26,
1991 (at p.13) under s.52(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908. The registering
officer refused to return the document on the grounds that it was prepared using
fake stamps.
Mr Manna appearing for the petitioner submits that the registering officer
could not refuse to return the document on the grounds that it was prepared
using fake stamps, especially when the petitioner, not responsible in any manner
for manufacture of the fake stamps or for selling them, was ready and willing to
pay the deficit stamp.
Ms Roy appearing for the respondents submits under instructions that it is
true that the document was not returned on the grounds that it was prepared using fake stamps. Her further submission is that there is no provision under which the petitioner can be permitted to substitute genuine stamps for the fake ones.
After considering an order of the Inspector General of Registration, West Bengal dated July 16, 1991 and the specific case of the respondents stated in the written instructions given to Ms Roy that no criminal case in which the document 2 is required was initiated, I am of the view that it will be appropriate to direct the registering officer to return the document to the petitioner on his paying the deficit stamp.
The relevant part of the order of the Inspector General of Registration, West Bengal is quoted below:
"With reference to his Memo No. 1713 dt.27.6.91 he is requested not to deliver any document written upon forged stamp papers until the deficit stamp, so short, due to use of forged stamp paper is paid. No certified copies should also be granted before the full realization of the stamp duty. Necessary instructions to all Registering officers under his control should also be issued."
When admittedly the petitioner is not responsible for the forgery of the stamps, I am unable to see how the respondents can refuse to return the document.
For these reasons, I dispose of the petition ordering as follows.
Within a fortnight from the date the petitioner pays the deficit stamp the registering officer shall complete registration of the document and within a fortnight thereafter he shall return the document on presentation of the original receipt issued under s.52(1)(b) writing on the original stamps that they are fake, and that deficit stamp has been paid by the petitioner in terms of the order of the Court.
No costs. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.)