T RAJADURAI Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order in the present writ petition is an order passed by the first respondent rejecting the petitioners request for condonation of delay in filing the statutory appeal, by an order dated 21.10.2009.

(2.) According to the petitioner he purchased a property on 06.12.2007 and presented the sale deed for registration before the fourth respondent. A notice in form No.1 was issued by the second respondent stating that the document has been under valued and claim was made for deficit stamp duty. In the said notice liberty was granted to the petitioner to submit his objections. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his objections on 19.05.2008.

(3.) The second respondent passed an order which in fact does not even contain the signature of the second respondent. However the petitioner could not prefer an appeal to the first respondent within a statutory period of two months prescribed under Rule 9 (5)(a) of the Tamilnadu Stamp (Prevention of under-valuation Instruments) Rule, 1968. The reason for the petitioner being not been able to submit the appeal within the time was stated by the petitioner along with the appeal petition and a prayer for condonation of delay was also sought for. The first respondent issued a show cause notice on 23.09.2009 calling upon to explain the reasons for the delay. Accordingly, the petitioner has explained the reason for his delay in explanation dated 06.09.2009. However, by the order dated 21.10.2009, the request for condonation of delay came to be rejected by the first respondent on the ground that he did not enclose any substantial record supporting the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal petition.