IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2011 / 20TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 1761 of 2011(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.A.MATHAI, S/O. MATHAI, AGE 53 YEARS, PARAPPALIL HOUSE, PERIYAPURAM.P.O.,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH SRI.T.J.JIJO RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001. 2. THE SECRETARY TAX(E) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, R.D.O. OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, TRISSUR-680001. 4. THE TAHSILDAR THALAPPILLY TALUK, THALAPPILLY TRISSUR DISTRICT-680001. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.1761/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE STAMP PAPERS PURCHASED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 9.6.2003 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.B2 K DIS.10692/03 DT 28.8.2003. EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER ON 15.10.2003. EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.19377/E2/10/TAX DATED 30/9/2010 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 1761 OF 2011 (U) ===================== Dated this the 11th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The challenge in the writ petition is against Exts.P3 and P5 orders passed by respondents 3 and 2 respectively. Petitioner purchased Ext.P1 stamp paper and sale deed was also prepared. However, the sale could not be completed due to inability of the executors to sign the document. Therefore, Ext.P2 application was made to the 3rd respondent for claiming allowance for spoiled stamps as contemplated under section 47(c)(4), which provision reads as under:- 47(c)(4) for want of the execution thereof by some material party, and his inability or refusal to sign the same, is in fact incomplete and insufficient for the purpose for which it was intended. 2. However, his application was rejected by Ext.P3 order of the 3rd respondent referring to Section 47(c)(5) of the Act. Against Ext.P3, petitioner filed Ext.P4 before the 2nd respondent and that also was rejected by Ext.P5 referring to Section 47(c)(5) of the Kerala Stamp Act. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 3. As already stated, the benefit claimed by the petitioner WPC No. 1761/11 :2 : in Ext.P2 is that of Section 47(c)(4) and his application was considered and rejected referring to section 47(c)(5) and these two provisions operate in different circumstances. 4. Since the application of the petitioner was not considered in the light of section 47(c)(4), Ext.P3 order passed by the 3rd respondent and Ext.P5 order passed by the 2nd respondent deserves to be set aside and I do so. It is directed that the 3rd respondent shall reconsider Ext.P2 application in the light of Section 47(c)(4) referred to above and fresh orders thereon shall be passed. This shall be done at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp