Kerala High Court
Mary E.Thomas vs The District Collector on 21 March, 2010
Author: S.Siri Jagan
Bench: S.Siri Jagan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/10TH CHAITHRA 1934
WP(C).No. 5379 of 2012 (V)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
----------------------
MARY E.THOMAS, W/O EMMANULE THOMAS,
MURRYAMKAVUNKAL HOUSE,
PERUMPANACHY P.O, CHANGANACHERRY,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT 257,
NORTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE, UPPER MONCLAIR,
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, COUNTY OF ESSEX.
BY ADVS. SMT.A.SREEKALA,
SMT.C.R.DIYA.
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOTTAYAM-686 001.
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
KOTTAYAM-686 001.
3. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA,
NRI CELL, KOTTAYAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN-686 001.
R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.MOHAMMED SHAH.
R3 BY ADV. MR.P.V. SURENDRANATH, SC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 30-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).No. 5379 of 2012 (V)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 21.03.2010
EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15.09.2011 FILED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2.
EXHIBIT P3:(a): TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN RECEIPT FOR Rs. 50/-
DATED 15.09.2011.
EXHIBIT P3(b): TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN RECEIPT FOR Rs. 300/-
DATED 15.09.2011
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
rs.
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.5379 of 2012
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of March, 2012
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed an application before the 1st respondent for adjudication of the stamp duty payable on a power of attorney executed by the husband of the petitioner in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that the application for adjudication of stamp duty payable on the power of attorney has been returned by the 1st respondent without stating any reasons. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
"(i) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to accept Exhibit P2 application on the files and to consider and adjudicate Exhibit P1 Power of Attorney legally, clearly under the provisions of the Kerala Stamp Act;
(ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before taking a decision upon the matter of adjudication of Exhibit P1 Power of attorney."
2. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that the petitioner has not proved that the executant is a citizen of India and that is why it has been returned. It is also submitted that W.P.(C)No.5379/12 2 for purchase of treasury bonds in United State of America, no power of attorney can be registered in India.
3. I am of opinion that when an application for adjudication of stamp duty is presented before the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent cannot simply refuse to accept the application. That application has to be accepted and if there are valid reasons for not adjudicating the same a considered reply stating as to why the same cannot be adjudicated or not has to be issued to the person, who produces the same for adjudication.
Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to accept the application for adjudication of the stamp duty payable on the power attorney and to communicate appropriate orders thereon to the petitioner either adjudicating the stamp duty payable or to issue an order giving the reasons for refusing to adjudicate the same, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of the application on resubmission.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.5379/12 3 W.P.(C)No.5379/12 4