IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs. 50323-26 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SRI SAMPATH KUMAR D S/O B.DAVID AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO. 10 “A”
2ND FLOOR, 11TH CROSS MARUTHINAGARA, MADIVALA BENGALURU- 560 068 2. SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI W/O BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT 10, HOUSE NO.2 GROUND FLOOR, 12TH CROSS MARUTHINAGARA, MADIVALA BENGALURU- 560 068 3. SRI V.S.SRINIVAS S/O VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.10, HOUSE NO. 9, 12TH CROSS, MARUTHINGARA MADIVALA BENGALURU- 560 068 4. SMT.BHAGYALAKSHMI W/O LATE NARESH BABU AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT 10, HOUSE NO.2 FIRST FLOOR, 12TH CROSS MARUTHINAGARA, MADIVALA BENGALURU- 560 068 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI.SHASHIKUMAR G.V., ADV.) AND:
1. SRI SANDEEP KUMAR P.V.
S/O P.VENKATASWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO. 212, 4TH CROSS UCO BANK LAYOUT 20TH MAIN, B.T.M. LAYOUT 1ST STAGE, BANGALORE-560 068.
… RESPONDENT (BY SRI.H.P.LEELADHAR, ADV.) - - -
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED AND PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PRDER DATED: 05.10.2018 IN O.S. NO. 5042/2013 AND CLUBBED CASES O.S. NO. 5043/2013, O.S. NO. 5044/2013 AND O.S. 5046/2013 PASSED BY THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE, AND FURTHER ORDER DATED 10.10.2018 DIRECTING THE PETITIONERS TO PAY THE DUTY AND PENALTY AS PER OFFICE NOTE, AT ANNEXURE-A PAGE NO. 14 AND 15 AND ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri Shashikumar G V, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri H P Leeladhar, learned counsel for respondent.
2. Petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 05.10.2018 by which the trial Court has directed the office to verify, “Whether the leased agreements dated 31.01.2013, 20.04.2012, 07.04.2011 and 28.11.2013 are sufficiently stamped?”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short) if a document is produced before the trial Court which is not sufficiently stamped, the trial court is directed to examine the question, ‘whether or not the aforesaid document is sufficiently stamped by a speaking order in accordance with law?’. The aforesaid issue cannot be delegated to the office in the absence of any statutory provision. It is further submitted that the impugned order is cryptic and suffers from the vices of non-application of mind.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the trial Court.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The impugned order reads as under:
Sri RA Adv Deff is present, orders not Ready, heard further arguments, learned Counsel for the defendant, defendant in O.S.No.5043/2013 is present. Heard perused the materials on record. During the examination of defendants in O.S.5042/2013, 5043/2013, 5044/2013, 5046/2013 as Dw1 to 4, the learned counsel for plaintiff has objected for marking of the lease agreements dated 31/1/2013, 20/4/2012, 7/4/2011 and 28/11/2012 as the said lease agreements on insufficient stamp paper and therefore they are insufficiently stamped. In the circumstances office is directed to verify whether the lease deeds are sufficiently stamped or not. If agreements are not sufficiently stamped office is directed to OS 5042/2013 c/w OS 5043/2013 OS 5044/2013 c/w OS 5046/2013 Calculate the duty and penalty payable on the said lease agreement by 10/10/2018.
s/d 5/10/2018 7. From the perusal of the order, it is evident that the trial Court has not examined the question, ‘whether or not the leased agreements are sufficiently stamped?’ The Trial Court has delegated the aforesaid power to the office which is not permissible in view of Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. Besides that the Trial Court has not assigned any reasons for passing the impugned order. In ‘S.N.Mukherjee v. Union of India’, (1990)4 SCC 594, the Supreme Court has held that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi judicial authorities. While emphasizing the need for assigning reasons, it was held that giving of reasons minimizes the chances of arbitrariness and hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law. In ‘Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and Others’, (2010) 3 SCC 732, it has been held by the Supreme Court that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. It has further been held that recording of reasons is a principle of natural justice. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making.
8. In view of the aforesaid provisions of law and from a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the same suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and is cryptic. No reasons have been assigned by the trial court in passing the impugned order. The same therefore cannot be sustained in law. It is accordingly quashed. The trial Court is directed to decide the issue with regard to insufficiency of the stamp duty on the lease agreements dated 31/1/2013, 20/4/2012, 7/4/2011 and 28/11/2012 by a speaking order within a period of one month from today. Accordingly, petitions are disposed of.
brn Sd/- JUDGE