GONDAL VIBHAG NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD Vs. COLLECTOR AND ASSTT. SUPDT. OF STAMPS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a co -operative bank registered under the relevant provisions of the Gujarat Co -operative Societies Act. The petitioner, in the course of its business, executed certain documents of pledge, hypothecation, mortgage etc. These documents were taken for inspection by the Inspectors of the Stamp Department who visited the bank some time in the month of May, 1976. As disclosed in the petition, there were 244 such documents. Respondent No. 1, i.e. Collector & Assistant Superintendent of Stamps, Gujarat State, directed the petitioner -Bank to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs. 2,238 -60 ps. in respect of certain documents. The petitioner - Bank paid this amount of deficit stamp duty. Later on in respect of other documents, which were executed before one year, respondent number 1 passed an order to the effect that there was deficit stamp duty to the extent of Rs. 5,764 -80 ps. and imposed penalty of Rs. 779.50 ps. The respondent number 1 directed the petitioner to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 6,544.30 of deficit stamp duty and penalty. This order was passed on April 30, 1977 and the same has been produced at Annexure -B to the petition. It appears that the order has been passed under the provisions of Section 39 (1) (b) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the aforesaid order and preferred a revision application under the provisions of Section 53 of the Act before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, i.e. respondent No. 2 herein. After hearing the parties the respondent No. 2 confirmed the order passed by respondent No. 1. Hence, the petitioner feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders, has filed this petition. It goes without saying that an order passed under Section 39(1) (b) of the Act affects the. petitioner adversely. Therefore, even though there is no specific provision in the Act for providing an opportunity of being heard the minimum principles of natural justice are required to be read by implication. Similar view is taken in the case of Diwan Kalusha and Others v. Mr. Vanikar reported in 11 GLR at page 1009. Reading the Section in this manner it is clear that it was incumbent upon respondent No. 1 to afford an opportunity of being heard before passing the order Annexure -B. Since the original order has been passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice, the same is a nullity and hence the order passed by respondent No. 2, i.e. the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority has also to be quashed and set a -side on the same ground because the nullity confirmed remains nullity.