IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6860 of 2010 1. Smt.Shanti Singh, W/O Shri Umesh Prasad Singh, R/O Village-Tarwan,P.S.Naubatpur,District- Patna. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Patna. 3. The District Registrar, Registration Office, Patna. 4. The Assistant Registrar, District Registration Office, Patna. 5.Deputy Collector (Stamp), District Registration Office, Patna. For the petitioner : Mr. Bimlendu Mishra, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Amit Bhushan, AC to SC-6. ------------ 2. 28.9.2011. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 6.12.2005 passed by the Collector cum District Magistrate, Patna in Impound Case No.2/05-06 whereunder the Collector while directing the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.4285/-, has imposed a fine to the extent of ten times of the deficit stamp duty amount, to the tune of Rs.42850/-. The facts of the case briefly stated is that a Deed of Conveyance was presented by the petitioner before the District Sub Registrar, Patna for registration thereof. The instrument was executed and a receipt was issued on 2 17.5.2005 copy whereof is present at Annexure-1 to the writ petition. As according to the respondent District Sub Registrar, the instrument was insufficiently stamped, hence the same was impounded under section 38(2) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’) and the matter was referred to the Collector for adjudication giving rise to Impound Case No.2/05-06. The order sheet of Impound Case No.2/05-06 is placed at Annexure-2 of the writ petition. The Collector cum District Magistrate, Patna vide order passed on 31.5.2005, while taking note of the fact that the stamp duty on the instrument was deficit by Rs.4285/-, issued notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why the said amount together with the fine be not recovered. The petitioner appeared before the Collector cum District Magistrate, Patna on 6.12.2005 and very fairly submitted that there was a miscalculation in addition of the stamp duty resulting in the deficit and that she was prepared to deposit the deficit amount. The Collector cum District Magistrate, Patna, by the impugned order, even while allowing the petitioner to deposit the said deficit stamp duty amount of Rs.4285/- has in a routine manner also 3 imposed a fine to the extent of ten times of the deficit amount to the tune of Rs.42850/- and issued further direction for deposit of the same through chalan in the treasury and for production of the receipt thereof. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said imposition of fine to the extent of ten times of the deficit stamp duty, has preferred the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an imposition of fine is not automatic under the Act and that the Collector cum District Magistrate, Patna has to record his satisfaction before making such imposition. It is submitted that even when there was no attempt on the part of the petitioner to under value the instrument or to cause revenue loss or to defraud the government, the respondent Collector has proceeded to impose the maximum amount of fine which is not only arbitrary and perverse but has also been passed in absence of any pre requisites for such imposition. Mr. Amit Bhushan, learned counsel for the State, while contesting the claim of the petitioner, has relied upon the statement made in para-5 of the counter affidavit by submitting that the petitioner had been directed to deposit 4 the deficit amount but the failure on her part to do so, has resulted in passing of the order impugned. He submits that the Chirkut appended at Annexure-1 is a document without any serial number and thus demonstrates that the deed was insufficiently stamped. It is thus stated that the fine was rightly imposed under the powers vested in the Collector under the Act. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon consideration of the materials available on the records of the proceedings, this court is, prima facie, convinced that the exercise of power by the respondent Collector cum District Magistrate, Patna in purported exercise of power vested under section 40(1) (b) of the Act has been passed in a routine and a mechanical manner without recording any satisfaction for the said exercise. An imposition of fine or penalty is neither a routine matter nor a revenue generating power and thus has to be passed with due care and caution. There has to be condition existing for such exercise. A bare perusal of section 40(1)(b) of the Act, manifests that a wide discretion has been vested in the respondent Collector to vary the extent of fine from Rs.5/- up to ten times of the deficit 5 amount. In the present case, the Collector, in a mechanical manner, has imposed the maximum amount of fine which is ten times of the deficit stamp duty amount and that also without recording any satisfaction for the said imposition. Interestingly, the Collector cum District Magistrate, Patna, while doing so, has even recorded the statement of the petitioner that there was miscalculation and that she was prepared to deposit the deficit amount which was a meager amount of Rs.4285/- and yet the fine has been imposed. It is not to dispute that the Collector of a district has a duty to protect its revenue interest but the said protection cannot be by arbitrary exercise of power as having been done in the present case. For the reasons aforesaid, the order impugned dated 6.12.2005 to the extent that penalty has been imposed on the petitioner to the extent of ten times of the deficit stamp duty to the tune of Rs.42850/-, is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to deposit the deficit stamp duty amount of Rs.4285/- only, in the Government Treasury and produce the chalan 6 thereof before the District Sub Registrar, Patna, who shall proceed in the matter for registration of the instrument in accordance with law without causing any unwarranted delay. The writ petition is allowed. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)