C.S.P. Singh, J. - (1.) THE petitioner by this petition has prayed for an order to modify the order passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 22nd June, 1975, and also for a writ quashing the order of the same authority dated 15th July, 1975, by which it rejected the registration of the petitioner as a valuer for the immovable properties.
(2.) THE petitioner passed his Bachelor of Engineering degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Rajasthan. It is averred in the writ petition that in passing this examination a candidate has also to study civil engineering and that a number of papers for Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) are common to the syllabus of the Bachelor of Engineering (Electrical). THEreafter, the petitioner passed various other post-graduate Diplomas and Courses from Universities in England, and qualified for Membership of the. Institution of Mechanical Engineers (London). He was subsequently appointed as a Chartered Engineer of various engineering institutions in London. On the 12th June, 1962, the petitioner was granted a Diploma of Membership by the Institution of Engineers (India) by virtue of his being elected as an Associate Member on the 10th December, 1961. On the 31st May, 1972, the petitioner was elected as a Member of the Institution of Engineers (India). THE Diploma of Membership was also granted to the petitioner. It transpires that the petitioner is also a Member in Civil Division of the Institution of Engineers (India). It is averred that the Institution of Engineers (India) holds examinations including Civil Engineering called Sections A and B and awards Diplomas of Associate Membership to successful candidates. Candidates who qualify in the examination become full members of the Institution of Engineers (India) after the institution is satisfied as respects his training, professional experience, etc.. Under the bye-laws of the Institution, however, the Council of the Institution is entitled to exempt any person from passing Sections A and B of the examination and to award diploma after taking into consideration his qualifications and experience. On the 5th July, 1968, the Central Board of Direct Taxes issued a notification that it proposed to appoint qualified persons as valuers under Section 4(3) of the Estate Duty Act and to fix the scale of charges for their remuneration. This notification set out the qualifications required for being appointed as a valuer of immovable properties other than agricultural land, etc. The petitioner applied for appointment as a valuer to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur, and was appointed as a valuer of immovable properties in the category of Engineer/Surveyor/Architect and his appointment was notified by Gazette dated 2nd April, 1969. This appointment was for a period of 5 years and was to continue till the 1st April, 1974. On the expiry of the term the petitioner applied for renewal of his approval/appointment as a valuer in the same category. This application was sent to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur, some time in the month of January/February, 1974. On 22nd June, 1975, the petitioner received a letter from the Under-Secretary, Government of India, stating that his appointment as a valuer was approved for the purposes of proceedings under the Estate Duty Act, only in respect of valuation of machinery and plant. The petitioner had also applied for being registered as a valuer of immovable property other than land and building/plant and machinery under Rule 8-B of the Wealth-tax Act, but was registered as a valuer of only plant and machinery. The petitioner, thereafter, made various representations for being registered as a valuer of immovable property also, but to no avail. On the 9th April, 1973, it is averred, the petitioner submitted a fresh application on the directions of respondent No. 1 for being registered as a valuer of immovable property but this application was rejected by orders dated 16th January, 1973, and 11th October, 1973. It appears that the petitioner sent a fresh representation on the 25th January, 1975, for reconsideration of the matter stating that as he was a member of the Institution of Engineers (India) in the Civil Division, which was equivalent to a degree in Civil Engineering, he was qualified for registration. Petitioner received information by letter dated 15th April, 1975, sent by respondent No. 1, that his representation was being considered but it transpires that it was ultimately rejected by an order of respondent No. 1, dated 15th July, 1975. The petitioner has now come up before us challenging the orders already enumerated above.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has submitted that he was fully qualified to be registered as an approved valuer of immovable property both under the Estate Duty Act and under the Wealth-tax Act. On the contrary, it has been contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner did not possess the necessary qualifications for being appointed as a valuer of immovable property. Before we consider these rival contentions, it will be necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the two Acts. So far as appointment of valuers under the Estate Duty Act is concerned, that is dealt with by Section 4(1) and (3), This section may be extracted. " 4. (1) Estate Duty Authorities.--There shall be the following authori ties for the purposes of this Act, namely : (a) the Board, (b) Controllers of Estate Duty, (bb) Appellate Controllers of Estate Duty, (c) Valuers...... (3) The Central Government shall, within 12 months after the commencement of this Act and may thereafter, from time to time, appoint a sufficient number of qualified persons to act as valuers for the purposes of this Act and shall fix a scale of charges for the remuneration of such persons. " ;