KANCHANBHAI RAOJIBHAI AMIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was appointed as a valuer under section 4(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, is aggrieved by the decision of the respondents contained in the letter of September 12, 1983, refusing to renew his appointment. The petitioner has, therefore, moved this court for appropriate writs, orders and directions to quash and set aside the said decision and enjoining on the respondents to renew the appointment of the petitioner as valuer for the purposes of valuation the properties under the said Act. In order to appreciate the challenge, it may be worthwhile to state shortly the facts and circumstances on which the decision for refusal or renewal was taken.

(2.) THE petitioner is a Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) from the Gujarat University and is also a member of the Institution of Engineers (India) as well as Associate Member of the Institution of Surveyors (India). The petitioner started practising as a consulting engineer and valuation expert at Ahmedabad in Gujarat State since 1958 -59. The petitioner immediately after his graduation joined the firm of M/s. Amin and Desai as an Assistant Engineer somewhere in 1955 and in view of his ability and experience, he was taken as a partner in the said firm in 1959. It appears that the petitioner made an application on February 14, 1969, to the Government of India in the Department of Revenue and Insurance in the Ministry of Finance for being appointed as an approved valuer for taxation laws, namely, the Estate Duty Act and the Wealth -tax Act, for the purposes of valuation of real properties. The petitioner appears to have been appointed in pursuance of this application as an approved valuer under section 4(3) of the Estate Duty Act with effect from May 9, 1969, which appointment appears to have been communicated, vide letter of May 21, 1969. Pursuant to the amendment in the Wealth -tax Act somewhere in the year 1973 requiring the appointment of valuers for the purposes of the valuation of immovable properties for the purposes of the Wealth -tax Act, it became necessary for the petitioner to make an application in the year 1973 for being appointed as a valuer for purposes of valuation under the Wealth -tax Act, 1957. Accordingly, he was appointed as a valuer with effect from October 12, 1973. However, his appointment as approved valuer under the Estate Duty Act came to an end somewhere on or about May 8, 1974. The petitioner, therefore, by his letter dated May 7, 1974, addressed to the Central Board of Direct Taxes, respondent No. 2 herein, for renewal of his appointment as a valuer. The Union Government, respondent No. 1 herein, on being satisfied about the qualifications and experience of the petitioner as a valuer for purposes of the Estate Duty Act, renewed the appointment of the petitioner for a further period of five years as intimated to the petitioner, vide letter of the Union Government dated June 17, 1974. The appointment was under section 4(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, for a period of five years from the date of issuance if the said letter. However, before the expiry of this renewal, the petitioner inquired from the Union Government as to whether his appointment would be required to be renewed in view of the notification issued by the Central Government on July 26, 1975, specifying the names of persons appointed as valuers under section 4(3) of the Estate Duty Act for different categories of assets and fixing scale of charges for the remuneration . The Union Government, by its letter of April 1, 1976, informed the petitioner that the question of renewal would arise only on expiry of his period of appointment on June 17, 1974, which was to remain for five years. The petitioner, therefore, on expiry of the aforesaid period of five years on June 16, 1979, applied for renewal of his appointment as an approved valuer by his application of January 19, 1980. The petitioner was required to complete certain formalities, namely, furnishing an income -tax clearance certificate and to submit the application in the prescribed pro forma. These formalities were completed by the petitioner and the particulars were furnished under cover of his letter dated July 2, 1981, the receipt of which was acknowledged by the letter of the Union Government of July 16, 1981.

(3.) IN response to the rule issued by this court, the reply affidavit of Shri Arvind Pinto, Under Secretary to the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The only material contention which has been set out in the reply affidavit resisting this petition is in the following terms :