COLLECTOR (STAMPS), A QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW/RECALL ITS ORDER

[Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN]

In SMT. SHIVANI CHAURASIA AND ANOTHER VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER - 2024 (5) TMI 1101 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, the petitioners purchased one agricultural land from its owner on 23.07.2020 for a consideration of Rs.1.2 crore.  The petitioners paid registration fee to the tune of Rs.1,25,280/- on the same day.  The Sub Registrar sent a confidential report on 14.09.2020 to the Assistant Inspector General, Registration, Jaunpur indicating deficiency of stamp duty to the tune of Rs.4,45,790/- and registration fee for Rs.63,690/-

A stamp case was registered.  A show cause notice was issued to the petitioners.  The petitioners appeared before the Collector (Stamps) and agreed to pay the balance amount of stamp duty and registration fee.  The Collector, after hearing the petitioners, imposed a penalty of Rs.25000/- on the petitioners.  The petitioners paid the entire amount including penalty on 18.12.2020. 

On 23.12.2020, one Siva Prasad filed a complaint seeking recall of the order of Collector, dated 09.12.2020.  The Collector issued another show cause notice on the petitioners on the receipt of complaint from the third party.  The petitioners filed objections against the said show cause notice contending that the order of Collector (Stamps) is final which was passed after duly considering the evidence on record and it is not an ex-parte order.  The Collector passed a fresh order which is under challenge before the High Court.

The petitioners contended that there are no power vests on the Collector to recall his order under section 47-A of the Stamp Duty Act and subsequently reassess or review his earlier order.  It is submitted on behalf of the Collector that based on the complaint received from Shri Siva Prasad, enquiry has been started against the Sub Registrar.  A show cause notice was issued to the Sub Registrar to explain the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint with regards to the forgery of certain documents.  It was further informed that the inquiry is on the way.  But they did not furnish any evidence as to the inquiry proceedings. 

The High Court considered the arguments put forth by both the parties.  The High Court considered the question to be answered in this case is as to whether the Collector (Stamps) who acts as a quasi-judicial authority possess any power inherent or statutory to recall/review on the passed under Section 47-A of the Act.  The High Court observed that it is apparent that no such power has been made available to the Collector (Stamps) under the Act. 

The High Court relied on the following judgments of High Courts in this regard-

• MILAP CHANDRA JAIN VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. - 1988 (7) TMI 420 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, the High Court held that an adjudication made by the Collector under S. 47-A of the Stamp Act could not be disturbed or reopened unless there is an express provision in the enactment conferring power of review by the authority making that order. It is settled law that the power of review on merits is not an inherent power. Such a power must flow from some specific provision in the enactment under which rights of the parties are determined. 
• PATEL NARSHI THAKERSHI AND ORS. VERSUS SHRI PRADYUMANSINGHJI - 1970 (3) TMI 163 - SUPREME COURT the Supreme Court held that it is well settled that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. No provision in the Act was brought to  the  notice of Supreme Court from which it would be gathered that the Government had power to review its own order. If the Government had no power to review its own order, it is obvious that its delegate could not have reviewed its order.
• PATEL CHUNIBHAI DAJIBHAI VERSUS NARAYANRAO KHANDERAO JAMBEKAR AND ANOTHER - 1964 (12) TMI 47 - SUPREME COURT the Supreme Court held that the orders passed by the Collector in the exercise of his revisional powers were quasi-judicial and were final.  The Act does not empower the Collector to review an order passed by him under Section 76-A. In the absence of any power of review, the Collector could not subsequently reconsider his previous decisions and hold that there were grounds for annulling or reversing t  he order.  The subsequent order dated 17.02.1959 re-opening the matter was illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction. 
• SUNIL KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. - 2016 (9) TMI 1669 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, the Allahabad High Court held that it cannot be disputed that the impugned order has been passed by a quasi-judicial authority and such authority cannot review its order in absence of power of review conferred under the Statute.  Unless power of review is expressly conferred on the authority by any statute under which it derives its jurisdiction, the authority concerned has no jurisdiction to review its earlier order. 

From the analysis of the abovementioned judgments of Supreme Court and High Court, the High Court held that it is clear that the Collector (Stamps) cannot recall/review its own order as such no power has been conferred on him under Section 47-A of the Act.  A quasi-judicial authority is limited in its functionality in as much as it has to act within the four corners of the statute from which it derives its authority.   If the statute does not provide for a particular act, the same cannot be undertaken by that authority. Any such action taken de hors the legislative intent would amount to an overreach and beyond the power of the said authority.

The High Court held that the quasi-judicial authorities are statutory bodies.  They are empowered by specific legislation to adjudicate disputes and make decisions within their specified scope of the Authority.  Unlike the Constitution Courts – High Courts and Supreme Court – the quasi-judicial authorities do not have inherent powers derived from Constitution but from the delegated legislation.  The rationale behind limiting the review powers of quasi-judicial authorities lies in ensuring adherence to the principle of separation of powers and preserving the integrity of the legislative scheme. Quasi-judicial authorities, being creatures of statute, must operate within the boundaries set forth by the legislature and therefore they cannot exceed their statutory mandate. 

The High Court further held that any expansion of review powers beyond what is expressly provided by statute undermines the legislative supremacy and judicial independence.   In the instant case, it is clear that no such power was present with the Collector (Stamps), and, therefore, the exercise of review carried out by the Collector (Stamps) is bad in law.  The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order. 

The High Court further directed the Principal Secretary, Stamp and Registration, Government of Uttar Pradesh to initiate/continue with the inquiry against the Sub Registrar and bring the same to a logical end.  The High Court directed the Principal Secretary to complete the inquiry within six months from the date of receipt of the order and submit a report to the Court. 

Discussions to this article

[Sadanand Bulbule]

Dear Sir

This article is an eye opener to such authorities working under all Acts. There is limit for everything. Every authority is not omnipotent. Authority is not law per se. Law made by legislature is in place to take care of any situation. So authorities have to skillfully mind their own business. Otherwise face music like this.

Gratitude and regards