Skip to content


In Re: V.S. Shanmuga Mudaliar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Petn. No. 3877 of 1950
Judge
Reported inAIR1951Mad276; (1950)2MLJ399
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226; Stamp Act, 1899 - Sections 57
AppellantIn Re: V.S. Shanmuga Mudaliar
Advocates:N.R. Raghavachariar, Adv.
DispositionApplication dismissed
Cases ReferredLocal Government Board v. Alridge
Excerpt:
- - all that qunsi judicial tribunals like the board of revenue have to do is to give sufficient opportunity to the persons who approach them for the exercise of their jurisdiction to state their case. before such a writ can issue, it must be established that the board of revenue has failed to perform a duty which was incumbent on it under the statute. it cannot, therefore, be said that the board has failed to exercise any statutory duty......on behalf of the petitioner with the order of the revenue divisional officer, cheyyar levying stamp duty and penalty on a document which the officer held to be a partition deed. the only ground on which this writ is sought is that the board did not give an opportunity to the petitioner to be orally heard. there is nothing in the act or in the rules framed thereunder which enjoins on the board the duty to give an oral hearing to a person who invokes their revisional jurisdiction. all that qunsi judicial tribunals like the board of revenue have to do is to give sufficient opportunity to the persons who approach them for the exercise of their jurisdiction to state their case. local government board v. alridge, (1915) a. c. 120 : 84 l. j. k. b. 72. this opportunity has been given to the.....
Judgment:

Rajamannar, C.J.

1. In this application the petitioner seeks both for a writ of certiorari and for a writ of mandamus. The certiorari is sought to quash the order of the Board of Revenue refusing to interfere on behalf of the petitioner with the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheyyar levying stamp duty and penalty on a document which the officer held to be a partition deed. The only ground on which this writ is sought is that the Board did not give an opportunity to the petitioner to be orally heard. There is nothing in the Act or in the Rules framed thereunder which enjoins on the Board the duty to give an oral hearing to a person who invokes their revisional jurisdiction. All that qunsi judicial Tribunals like the Board of Revenue have to do is to give sufficient opportunity to the persons who approach them for the exercise of their jurisdiction to state their case. Local Government Board v. Alridge, (1915) A. C. 120 : 84 L. J. K. B. 72. This opportunity has been given to the petitioner, because presumably he has stated all his grounds of objection to the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer in his revision petition. He is not entitled as of right to be heard and it cannot be said that the order of the Board passed without hearing him is contrary to principles of natural justice. We must, therefore, refuse to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order.

2. There is also a prayer for the issue of a writ of mandamus to refer the question of the liability of the document to stamp duty to this Court under Section 57, Stamp Act. Before such a writ can issue, it must be established that the Board of Revenue has failed to perform a duty which was incumbent on it under the statute. Under Section 57 it is left to the discretion of the Board to refer or not to refer any question as to the stamp duty payable on a document. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Board has failed to exercise any statutory duty. A writ of mandamus cannot, therefore, issue from this Court.

3. The application is, therefore, dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //