Quashed

Sri Malchira C Nanaiah v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Dec 2021WP/15511/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, quashed an order imposing excess penalty under the Karnataka Stamp Act. The court held that discretion under Sections 38 and 39 must be exercised according to rules of reason and justice, not arbitrarily. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

A Writ of Certiorari issued quashing the impugned order; matter remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Sri Malchira C Nanaiah Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.15511 OF 2021(GM-ST/RN)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MALCHIRA C NANAIAH, S/O ALTE SRI. MALACHIRA CHITIAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶9

SMT. M N NEELAMMA, W/O SRI. MALCHIRA C NANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶10

BOTH ARE R/AT NITOOR VILLAGE AND POST VIA BALELE, SOUTH KODAGU – 571 219. SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SMT. RUPA RON, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KIRAN V RON, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M S BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶15

DISTRICT REGISTRAR AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS, NO.580/2A, C H -44/2A, 1^ST FLOOR, DEEWANS ROAD, LAKSHMIPURAM, CHAMRAJA MOHALLA, MYSORE – 570 004.

¶16

… RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. B V KRISHNA, AGA)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.11.2020 PASSED BY THE R2 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC,

¶19

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The short grievance of the petitioners is against the

¶23

alleged levy of excess penalty under Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, on the instruments in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that in terms of Section 39 of the Act, the penalty levying authority ought to have exercised the discretion judiciously and this having not been made, the impugned order is vulnerable for challenge.

¶24

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent opposes the writ petition contending that orders made in discretion are not amenable to challenge in writ jurisdiction constitutionally vested in this Court; he also submits that the impugned order reflects the reasons for the decision and therefore, indulgence of the Writ Court is not warranted.

¶25

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶26

parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

¶27

¶28

a) The provisions of Sections 38 & 39 are cognate in nature and therefore, they have to be construed in the light of each other; text & context of these two provisions vest abundant discretion in the authorities in the matter of imposition of penalty where the instrument is not duly stamped; discretion contemplated under these provisions is not of “muhgal discretion”; it only means according to the rules of reason & justice; the impugned order is not animated with this approach and therefore, is liable to be voided.

¶29

b) The vehement contention of learned AGA that the mistake lies with the petitioners themselves in occasioning the passing of impugned order and therefore, they cannot turn around and lay a challenge thereto, does not impress this Court; in the matter of imposition of stamp duty, law leaves no discretion, is true; however, in a Welfare State, the power to impose penalty lies on a different footing and a host of elements enter discretionary decision making process.

¶30

In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order; matter is remitted for fresh consideration

¶31

¶32

in accordance with law after notice to the parties. All contentions are kept open.

¶33

Time for deciding the remand is eight weeks from the date a copy of this judgment is handed to the answering respondent and if delay is brooked, he may be required to pay penal costs after an appropriate application being moved in this regard.

¶34

Now, no costs.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Bsv

Sri Malchira C Nanaiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Malchira C Nanaiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri G Hemanna Vs the Commissioner of Police

Krishna K Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Society

Sri. Chandrappa S Vs South Western Railway Employees

Shri S Ramakrishna Vs the Asistant Commissioner

Sri Muniraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Ganesh Gayakwad Vs the State of Karnataka