JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - In these two applications filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by some ryots of Angul Subdivision the sole question for decision is the validity of the mutation fee charged by the Revenue officers of Angul for recognition of transfers of occupancy holdings made without their prior consent. The two applications were therefore heard together and dealt with in one judgment. 2. Chapter IX of the Angul Laws Regulation, 1936 (Regulation v. of 1936) contains statutory provisions relationship between landlord and tenant in Angol Subdivision. Section 61 of the Regulation reads as follows: 61 (1). Not transfer or charge (whether permanent or temporary) by a tenure-holder or raiyat of his right in his tenure holding or any portion thereof, whether by mortgage, lease, gift, exchange, or otherwise, shall be valid unless it is made with the written consent of the Deputy Commissioner. (2) No transfer or charge in contravention of Sub-section (1) shall be registered, or shall be in any way recognised as valid by any Court, in the exercise of civil or revenue jurisdiction. (3) If any tenure-holder or raiyat transfers his right in his tenure or holding or any portion thereof, in contravention of Sub-section (1), the Deputy Commissioner may, in his discretion, eject the person in possession of the land in respect of which such transfer Was made, and may either (a) restore the land to the tenant who transferred it, or to any of his heirs, or (b) re-settle the land with another tenant. Explanation:For the purpose of this Sub-section a mortgage with possession shall be deemed to be a transfer. (4) No suit shall be maintainable in any Court in respect of such ejectment but an appeal shall lie to the Commissioner, if presented within three months from the date of the order of ejectment, and his decision shall be final. Section 65 of the Regulation confers power on the Deputy Commissioner to delegate all or any of his powers under the aforesaid Chapter, to the Sub-Divisional Officer. It is now admitted that the power of the Deputy Commissioner to give his consent to the transfer under sub.section (1) of Section 61, or his discretion to eject a person in whose favour unauthorised transfer has been delegated to the Sub-Divisional Officer. 3. It is now admitted that the power of the Deputy Commissioner to give his consent to the transfer under sub.section (1) of Section 61, or his discretion to eject a person in whose favour unauthorised transfer has been delegated to the Sub-Divisional Officer. 3. Before considering the legal validity of the mutation fee, I may briefly refer to the previous history on the subject. During the previous settlement of Angul, in 1925.1928, the question about recognition of transfers made by raiyats was discussed and the then Commissioner appears to have laid down certain principles to be followed by the Deputy Commissioner in either recognise transfers or refusing to recognise transfers. At pages 14 and 15 of the Report these principles have been summarized as follows: Sanction should generally not be given in the following cases. (i) Where purchase is made by persons of the mahajan or non-cultivating class, i.e. (ii) Where purchase is made by persons who have no residence in the estate or who reside at a considerable distance from the land purchased. (iii) Purchases made by aryans of land of aboriginal and depressed classes. In these cases, the transfer in favour of aryans should not be allowed, but where the transferor has sufficient land left and has made the transfer out of economic necessity, the transfer may be sanctioned, provided the transferee is an actual cultivator of the land. But the transfer of land from aboriginals to telis and chasas should be checked as much as possible. (iv) Gifts of plots to Thakurs, family priests, God-fiends, sisters, and so on should be ignored altogether. (v) Gifts by females to relatives for the ostensible purpose that the relatives should maintain them or by male raiyats to cousins, etc. should be ignored altogether. (vi) The so-called Chakaran jagirs granted to Halias should be ignored add the lands recorded in the original raiyat's name. (vii) Dhuli bhag leases should be ignored. (viii) Mortgages with possession for an unlimited period with no definite terms should be terminated by persuading the parties to settle the debt arid to get the lands recorded in the name of the original raiyat. In extreme cases slips should be taken to eject both the transferor and the transferee and re-settle the lands with somebody else. The payment of fee at a certain rate was, however, recognised and the fee appears to have been collected from the parties. In extreme cases slips should be taken to eject both the transferor and the transferee and re-settle the lands with somebody else. The payment of fee at a certain rate was, however, recognised and the fee appears to have been collected from the parties. The partially Excluded Areas Enquiry Committee examined this question and gave their recommendation at page 115 of their report published in 1940: It has been reported to us that in Khurda and Banki Government estates no mutation fees are charged and we consider that Angul should be brought into line with these two estates in this matter also. That is to say, no mutation fee on transfer should be charged In Angul Even in North Orissa the landlord's right to charge mutation fee was completely taken away by the amendment made to the Orissa Tenancy Act in 1938, and in South Orissa such fees were never realised either in the raiyatwari area or in the zamindari area. It is therefore indeed strange that though 17 years have elapsed since the submission of the Report of the Partially Excluded Areas Enquiry Committee Government should still continue to charge mutation fee in Angul Subdivision. It has been asserted by the Petitioners that during the Current Settlement operations which are now going on in Angol innumerable instances of unauthorised transfers by raiyats have come to the notice of the Settlement authorities and notices have been served on the transferees to deposit mutation fee for the purpose of the recognition of such transfers. 4. On behalf of the State of Orissa an affidavit has been filed by the Assistant Secretary in the Revenue Department in which an attempt has been made to justify the levy of the said fee in the following term;: The transfer in favour of the Petitioner being without the consent of the Deputy Commissioner there was a contravention of Section 61 (1) of the Angul Laws Regulation, 1936 and u/s 61 (2), the Deputy Commissioner or Sub-Divisional Officer to whom power is delegated u/s 65 can in exercise of his discretion eject the transferee. In exercise of the said discretion it is not illegal for the Deputy Commissioner on behalf of the landlord-state to offer certain terms such as payment of a small amount as in these cases fixed according to classification of villages and rates of rent in order that he will exercise discretion in favour of the unauthorised transferee. This offer though wrongly called validation fee, is neither a tax nor fee, nor imposition nor charge as it is completely optional for the Petitioner to accept it or not. There is no element of compulsion in this offer and upon failure to accept, the amount cannot be realised though the Deputy Commissioner, in exercise of his discretion will not validate the transfer but will proceed to eject the unauthorised transferee. 5. In view of this affidavit it may be taken as the case of Government that the said levy is neither a fee nor a tax, but is merely in the nature of solatium, on accepting which the Government would forego their right to evict the unauthorized transferee. If the same is not paid the transfer will not be recognised and the unauthorised transferee wilt be evicted. The charge is fixed according to the classification of villages and rates of rent and not according to any other consideration. 6. The legal question for decision is whether a statutory authority who tinder Sub-section (3) of Section 61 of the Angul Laws Regulation 1986 is required to exercise his discretion to evict an unauthorised transferee, can fetter the exercise of such discretion by giving advance notice to the effect that he would recognise the transfer if a certain payment is made. In my opinion, such a practice is clearly invalid. If a statute confers discretion on an authority he must exercise that discretion according to well know principles applicable in such cases, and the principles laid down in the Settlement Report based on the previous orders of the Commissioner of Angul are undoubtedly healthy principles which may guide an officer in recognising or refusing to recognise transfers. But to announce before-hand to every unauthorised transferee that if he would pay a certain sum the transfer would be recognised and otherwise steps would be taken to evict him is tantamount to an abdication of the discretionary power conferred on the authority by the statute. 7. But to announce before-hand to every unauthorised transferee that if he would pay a certain sum the transfer would be recognised and otherwise steps would be taken to evict him is tantamount to an abdication of the discretionary power conferred on the authority by the statute. 7. There is sufficient authority in English decisions in support of this view. Thus, in Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes 10th Edition, at pages 125-126 occur the following passages: In cases where a statute confers a discretionary pow r, an exercise of it in the fetters of self-Imposed rules of practice purporting to bind in all cases, would not be within the Act. Thus where an Act gave the Court of Quarter Sessions power if it thought fit to give costs in every poor law appeal, it would be bound to exercise a fair and honest discretion In each case, and would not be entitled to govern itself by a general resolution or rule of practice, to give nominal costs in all cases, for this would be in effect to repeal the provision of the Act. Again in Rex v. Bowman (1898) Q.B.D. 663 it was pointed out that where Justices of boroughs are authorised to grant licenses to sell intoxicating liquors to an applicant, the condition attached by the Justices to the effect that the licenses would be granted only on payment of a certain sum, was held to be invalid on the ground that by imposing such a condition the Justices allowed themselves to take into consideration matters which had no bearing on the merits of the case before them and which influenced their minds in arriving at their decision. In the present case also if the mere payment of mutation fee demanded is the only condition for recognition of the transfer, the Revenue authority would be influenced by extraneous considerations while exercising his statutory power which is not permitted by law. 8. It is unnecessary to consider whether the sum charged for recognition of mutation is a fee or a tax because it is not the Government's case that it is either the one or the other. 9. 8. It is unnecessary to consider whether the sum charged for recognition of mutation is a fee or a tax because it is not the Government's case that it is either the one or the other. 9. I would therefore, allow these petitions and direct the issue of a writ calling upon the opposite parties to refrain from collecting any sum from the transferee or transferor of a holding for the purpose of recognition of such transfer or for the purpose of exercising the discretion to evict an unauthorised transferee under Sub-sections (1) and (8) of Section 61 of the Angul Laws Regulation (No. V) of 1936. The petitions are allowed with costs. Consolidated hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 100/-(Rupees one hundred only). Das, J. 10. I agree. Petitions allowed Final Result : Allowed