IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22753 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE SUB REGISTRAR, ERUMELY, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. JOSE GEORGE, THAZHATHUTHAKADIYIL, KANJIRAPPALLY, ANAKKALLU P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. KERALA LOK AYUKTHA, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: kkms/ V.GIRI, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C). No. 22753 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of August 2009. JUDGMENT The State, District Registrar Kottayam and Sub Registrar Erumely have challenged an order passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta on a complaint filed by the first respondent. The complaint was filed inter alia to set aside proceedings initiated by the District Registrar under Section 45B of the Kerala Stamp Act and the Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments Rules, 1968. The complainant before the Lok Ayukta had purchased 81.44 Ares of land in Koovappally Village, Kanjirappally Taluk as per sale deed No. 1934/04. The Sub Registrar, Erumely had registered the document. But later detecting undervaluation, Ext.P2 provisional order was issued by the District Registrar requiring the vendee to remit an amount of Rs.6,000/- as insufficient stamp duty and registration fee. It is this order passed on 19.07.2005 that was challenged by the first respondent in Ext.P1 complaint before the Lok Ayukta. The State and District Registrar were the respondents. The Upa Lok Ayukta by Ext.P3 order dated W.P.(C). No. 22753 OF 2009 2 15.05.2006 inter alia issued a direction restraining the District Registrar from further proceeding with the complaint and taking steps to recover any deficit stamp duty and registration fee. It is this order that has been challenged in the writ petition. 2. Several grounds have been taken up in the writ petition to challenge the order passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta. But I take note of the fact that the deficit stamp duty and deficit registration fee which was demanded by the District Registrar and which demand has been set aside by the Upa Lok Ayukta comes to only Rs.6,000/-. In these circumstances, I am of the view that it would not be in the interest of justice, to entertain this writ petition and undertake a detailed appraisal of the issues. Since the amount involved in the complaint is comparatively minimum, I am of the view that the interest of the State would also not be prejudiced by an affirmation of the order passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta. 3. Learned Government Pleader submits that this Court has already entertained other writ petitions filed challenging similar orders passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta. On verification of W.P.(C). No. 22753 OF 2009 3 the judges papers on these cases, I have taken note of the fact that the amounts involved in those cases are comparatively significant and higher. In these circumstances, I decline jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition, but making it clear that I have not dealt with the contentions of the petitioner on merits and the same are therefore left open. (V.GIRI) JUDGE kkms/