Shelat, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the High Court of Punjab (Delhi Bench) dismissing the appellant's petition for an appropriate writ directing the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Delhi, to state the case to the High Court under S. 57 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 2 of 1899.
(2.) The facts leading to the said petition may be briefly stated:On December 20, 1961 the appellant executed a deed of trust in respect of certain properties on a stamp paper of Rs. 30 on the footing that the said deed was a declaration of trust. The Sub-Registrar to whom it was presented for registration, impounded it and forwarded it to the Collector for action under Section 38 (2) . The Collector served a notice on the appellant to show cause why he should not be charged with deficient stamp duty of Rs. 3,365 and a penalty of Rs. 33,650. After hearing Counsel the Collector directed the appellant to deposit the aggregate amount of Rs. 36,685. The appellant filed a revision before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Delhi who reduced the amount of deficit duty and penalty to Rs. 630 and Rs. 3150 respectively. On December 9, 1962 the appellant applied to the said Authority to state the case to the High Court under section 57 (1) . That was rejected and the appellant filed a writ petition but the High Court dismissed it in limine.
(3.) The appellant's contention is that the Authority was under Section 57 (l) bound to refer the case to the High Court even though there was no pending case before it, that by its refusal to do so the Authority failed to discharge its statutory duty, that the High Court was in the circumstances competent to direct the reference and therefore the High Court's summary dismissal of the writ petition was wrong. The respondent's contention, on the other hand, is that Section 57 (1) postulates the existence of a pending case, that the word "case" in the sub-section means a case which has not been finally decided by the revenue authorities and which is capable of being disposed of, if a reference is made and the High Court pronounces its opinion on such reference, in accordance with such opinion as provided by section 59 (2) . It is contended that therefore the High Court cannot direct the Authority to state the case except where the case is still pending before the Revenue Authorities. How can the Authority, it was argued, dispose of the case conformably to the High Court's opinion when there is no case pending before it which it can dispose.;