HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PEITITON No. 8029 OF 2002 Dated 21st January, 2010 Between: G.R. Rama Rao ………Petitioner And The Inspector General of Stamps & Registration, Govt., of A.P., Hyderabad and another ………..Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : None appeared Counsel for the respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner who is an advocate and notary filed this writ petition for a mandamus to direct the respondents to forbear from enforcing Memo No. 645/2001, dated 15-03-2002 issued by respondent No.2. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner attested document dated 24-03-2000 purporting to be a deed of divorce. The document was executed on a stamp paper worth Rs.50/-. Evidently, on the basis of the objections raised in audit report dated 08-05-2000, respondent No.2 issued notice to the petitioner, wherein he directed the petitioner to deposit the purported deficit stamp duty of Rs.3,900/- under Article 20 of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply wherein he explained the reasons in support of his stand that no deficit stamp duty was payable. By the impugned order, respondent No. 2 called upon the petitioner to remit the deficit stamp duty. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that respondent No.2 failed to advert to any of the aspects raised by the petitioner in his explanation. This clearly shows complete non- application of mind on the part of respondent No.2 in dealing with the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Respondent No.2 is under legal obligation to consider the explanation of the petitioner and give reasons for not accepting the same before calling upon him to remit the purported deficit stamp duty. As respondent No.2 failed to follow this procedure, the order cannot be sustained in law. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. Respondent No.2 is however given liberty to pass a fresh order with appropriate reasons after considering the contents of the explanation submitted by the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated: 21st January, 2010 ks