THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO. 5191 OF 1996 DATED: 16..09..2005. BETWEEN: The Deccan Sugars (Division of Nava Bharat of Ferro Alloys Ltd.) Samalkot, E.G.District, Rep.by its Company Secretary … Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by the Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO.5191 OF 1996 ORDER: The District Registrar (3rd respondent) while inspecting the premises of the petitioner under Section 73 of the Indian Stamp Act as amended in the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Rules made there under, came across certain unstamped agreements between the petitioner and ryots relating to supply of sugarcane, and a letter addressed by the petitioner to the Government seeking exemption of payment of stamp duty on the agreements between it and the ryots for supply of sugarcane to it. On the ground that the Government refused to grant exemption from payment of stamp duty on those agreements, third respondent through his letter No.G4/3257/95 dated 16-02-1996 demanded an amount of Rs.3,77,500/- as stamp duty and penalty from the petitioner. Questioning the said demand, petitioner filed this petition. Heard both sides. Since the agreements, in respect of which demand for payment of stamp duty and penalty is made through the communication impugned, were found in the premises of the petitioner during the course of inspection said to have been made by the 3rd respondent, and were not produced before any authority for the purpose of evidence or otherwise as contemplated by Section 33 of the Stamp Act, and since power of inspection, vested in the 3rd respondent by virtue of the Andhra Pradesh amendment to Section 73 of the Stamp Act and the rules made therein was struck down by the apex court in “DISTRICT REGISTRAR AND COLLECTOR, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER v. CANARA BANK ETC., as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and vice of excessive delegation, notice of demand impugned in this petition directing the petitioner to pay stamp duty on the agreements is ultra virus the power and authority of respondents and so the same is liable to be and hence is quashed. Accordingly, rule nisi is made absolute and this petition is allowed with costs and the impugned demand notice stands quashed. ____________________ C.Y.SOMAYAJULU, J. Dated: 16..09..2005. rns