P. N. BHAGWATI, P. D. DESAI, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against an order dated February 17 1965 passed by the Collector of Kaira who is the respondent herein under sec. 39 (1) (b) of the Bombay Stamp Act 1958 hereinafter referred to as the Act. By the said order the respondent directed tit a sum of Rs. 500/being the deficit stamp duty and a further sum of Rs. 1500/being the amount of penalty be recovered from the first petitioner who had allegedly presented an insufficiently stamped instrument of gift for registration before the Sub Registrar of Anand. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition may be briefly stated. One Bafatisha Jivasha was the original owner of an open plot of land bearing survey No. 2435/1-2 admeasuring 32 Gunthas situate in Anand District Kaira. In or about 1956-57 two building each consisting of 15 singleroom tenements were constructed upon the said open plot of land. By an instrument dated January 15 1958 Bafatisha Jivasha made a gift of one of the said two buildings known as Rajabsha Quarters to his daughter Hasinabibi who is the mother of the petitioners. Hasinabibi in her turn made a gift of the said property to the petitioners by an instrument of gift dated April 29 1963 In the said instrument of gift the property in question was valued at Rs. 20 0 The instrument was duly presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar at Anand by the first petitioner. The Sub-Registrar impounded the said instrument of gift under sec. 33 of the Act as it appeared to him that it was not duly stamped and sent it to the respondent under sec. 37 (2) of the Act. The respondent thereupon passed the impugned order on February 17 1965 under sec. 39 (1) (b) of the Act valuing the properly in question at Rs. 30 0 and further directing that the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 500/together with the penalty of Rs. 1500/be recovered from the first petitioner. The order was served upon the petitioners on 20th February 1965 Closely on the heels of the said order followed a notice under sec. 30 0 and further directing that the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 500/together with the penalty of Rs. 1500/be recovered from the first petitioner. The order was served upon the petitioners on 20th February 1965 Closely on the heels of the said order followed a notice under sec. 200 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code which was served upon the first petitioner stating that since the amount payable by the first petitioner under the impugned order was not paid till the date of the notice the Revenue Officer of the Taluka was authorised to enter the house of the first petitioner and recover the said amount within 7 days from the receipt of the said notice. The petitioners thereupon filed the present petition challenging the impugned order and praying that the same be quashed and set aside. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the petitioners the impugned order is challenged on diverse grounds; but we need to take notice only of two grounds which are fatal to the validity of the order. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the proceeding before the Collector under sec. 39 of the Act is a quasi judicial proceeding and that the Collector in exercising his powers under the said section is bound to comply with the principles of natural justice. It was further contended that in a proceeding under the said section the Collector is also bound to make a speaking order i. e. an order which on the face of it discloses the reasons in support of the findings given in the said order. In the instant case before making the impugned order the Collector has failed to give any opportunity to the petitioners to represent their case nor has he made a speaking order and therefore according to the petitioners the order is vitiated. ( 4 ) IT may be convenient at this stage to very briefly examine the relevant provisions of the Act. Sec. 33 of the Act reads as under:- Sec. 33 (1):- Every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence and every person in charge of a public office except an officer of police before whom any instrument chargeable in his opinion with duty is produced or comes in the performance of his functions shall if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped impound the same. (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sec. 37 of the Act reads as under:- sec. 37:- (1) When the person impounding an instrument under sec. 33 has by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence and admits such instrument in evidence upon payment of a penalty as provided by sec. 34 or of duty as provided by sec. 36 he shall send to the Collector an authenticated copy of such instrument together with a certificate in writing stating the amount of duty and penalty levied in respect thereof and shall send such amount to the Collector or to such person as he may appoint in this behalf. (2) In every other case the person so impounding an instrument shall send it in original to the Collector. SEC. 39 of the Act reads as under:- sec. 39:- (1) When the Collector impounds any instrument under sec. 33 or receives any instrument sent to him under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 37 not being an instrument chargeable with a duty of twenty naye paise or less he shall adopt the following procedure:- (A) if he is of opinion that such instrument is duly stamped or is not chargeable with duty he shall certify by endorsement thereon that it is duly stamped or that it is not so chargeable as the case may be; (B) if he is of opinion that such instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped he shall require the payment of the proper duty or the amount required to make up the same together with a penalty of five rupees:- or if he thinks fit an amount not exceeding ten times the amount of the proper duty or of the deficient portion thereof whether such amount exceeds or falls short of five rupees;provided that when such instrument has been impounded only because it has been written in contravention or sec. 13 or sec. 14 the Collector may if he thinks fit remit the whole penalty prescribed by this section. (2) Every certificate under clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) shall for the purposes of this Act be conclusive evidence of the matters stated therein. 13 or sec. 14 the Collector may if he thinks fit remit the whole penalty prescribed by this section. (2) Every certificate under clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) shall for the purposes of this Act be conclusive evidence of the matters stated therein. (3) Where an instrument has been sent to the Collector under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 37 the Collector shall when he has dealt with it as provided by this section return it to the impounding officer. ( 5 ) ON the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners the fir question which arises for our consideration is whether the proceedings before the Collector under sec. 39 of the Act are quasi judicial proceedings. In Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S. Advani A. I. R. 1950 Supreme Court 222 Das J. formulated the following tests for deciding whether particular act is an administrative act or a quasi judicial act:- (I) that if a statute empowers an authority not being a Court in the ordinary sense to decide disputes arising out of a claim made by one party under the statute which claim is opposed by another party and to determine the respective rights of the contesting parties who are opposed to each other there is a lis and prima facie and in the absence of anything in the statute to the contrary it is the duty to the authority to act judicially and the decision of the authority is a quasi judicial act; and (II) that if a statutory authority has power to do any act which will prejudicially) affect the subject then although there are not two parties apart from the authority and the contest is between the authority proposing to do the act and the subject opposing it the final determination of the authority will yet be a quasi judicial act provided the authority is required by the statute to act judicially. THE case before us falls in the second category of cases indicated in the aforesaid tests. ( 6 ) IT is true that sec. 39 does not in terms cast a duty upon the Collector to act judicially. However it is by now well established that the duty to act Judicially is not required to be superadded or superimposed by the statute. Such a duty may be inferred or spelt out from the nature of the power conferred upon the authority. 39 does not in terms cast a duty upon the Collector to act judicially. However it is by now well established that the duty to act Judicially is not required to be superadded or superimposed by the statute. Such a duty may be inferred or spelt out from the nature of the power conferred upon the authority. If the nature of the power is such that it empowers the authority to determine question which will prejudicially affect the subject the judicial character of the duty has to be inferred from the very nature of the power conferred upon the authority. We will therefore examine sec. 39 of the Act to find out whether it empowers the Collector to do any act which will prejudicially affect the subject. ( 7 ) SEC. 39 empowers the Collector to determine in the first instance whether an instrument impounded by him under sec. 33 or sent to him under sec. 37 (2) of the Act is chargeable with duty and if so whether it is duly stamped or not. The section empowers the Collector in cases where he is of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped to require the payment of the proper duty or the amount required to make up the same together with a penalty of Rs. 5/or if he thinks fit an amount not exceeding 10 times the amount of the proper duty or of the deficient portion thereof whether such amount exceeds or falls short of Rs. 5. 00. It is thus clear that sec. 39 of the Act confers upon the respondent a wide power which includes the power to adjudicate the proper stamp duty and to impose a penalty and it cannot be gainsaid that an order made in exercise of the power conferred under such a section would prejudicially affect the person against whom the order is made. The requirement of quasi judicial act which postulates that the determination must affect some right of the subject or impose some liability on him is therefore satisfied. The duty to act judicially must therefore be inferred from the nature of the power conferred upon the Collector under sec. 39 of the Act. The requirement of quasi judicial act which postulates that the determination must affect some right of the subject or impose some liability on him is therefore satisfied. The duty to act judicially must therefore be inferred from the nature of the power conferred upon the Collector under sec. 39 of the Act. ( 8 ) IN the view which we are taking we are fortified by a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Board of Revenue Chepauk Madras (Now Andhra) at Madras Referring Officer v. Poosarla China Appallanarasimhulu A. I. R. 1957 Andhra Pradesh 237 (Full Bench.) In that case sec. 40 of the Stamp Act 1899 came up for consideration before a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Court examined the scheme of that Act with particular reference to secs. 40 56 and 59 (2) of the Act and Subba Rao C. J. with whom Krishna Rao J. concurred observed as follows:-THESE sections are part of an integral scheme for ascertaining the quantum of stamp duty and penalty payable on a document which depend upon the interpretation of the document and the provisions of the Stamp Act and which sometimes raise complicated questions thereof. The duty of the Collector is therefore a judicial one and the fact that the higher tribunal is provided for emphasised that fact. Though the sec. 40 does not in term say that the opinion of the Collector should be expressed and implemented after giving notice to the parties. principles of natural justice require that it should be done so. WE may mention that the provisions of secs. 40 56 and 59 (2) of to Stamp Act 1899 and the provisions of secs. 39 53 54 and 56 of the Act with which we are concerned are substantially the same. ( 9 ) WE are therefore of the opinion that the power conferred upon the respondent under sec. 39 of the Act is a quasi judicial power and before exercising the power conferred upon him under the said section the Collector should consider the questions arising before him in a judicial spirit. In exercising the power the Collector must act justly and fairly and not arbitrarily or capriciously:- he must act in accordance with the principles of natural justice. In exercising the power the Collector must act justly and fairly and not arbitrarily or capriciously:- he must act in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Before taking any action under the said section the Collector should give to the person likely to be affected by the order proposed to be made a notice of the action intended to be taken make available to him the material on the basis of which the Collector proposes to take action under the said section and give a fair and reasonable opportunity to such person to represent his case and to correct or controvert the material sought to be relied against him. ( 10 ) SINCE the impugned order is undisputedly made in the instant case without complying with these essential principles of natural justice the petitioners are entitled to succeed and the order is liable to be quashed and set aside. But there is yet another infirmity in the impugned order and that infirmity is that the impugned order is not a speaking order i. e. an order which on the face of it discloses the reasons in support of the findings given in the said order. It is now well settled that every administrative Officer exercising quasi judicial functions is bound to give reasons in support of the order he makes. (Vide The Testeels Limited v. N. M. Desai (1969) 10 G. L. R. 622 ). In the impugned order the respondent has recorded the finding that the value of the property gifted to the petitioners is Rs. 30 0 and not Rs. 20 0 as recited in the instrument of gift. Now surely the respondent ought to have given reasons in support of this basic finding on the strength of which he has given a further finding to the effect that the document in question was insufficiently stamped and consequently imposed a penalty on the petitioners. The respondent ought to have indicated in his order the grounds and materials on the basis of which he disagreed with the valuation of the gifted property as made in the instrument of gift and valued the property in respect of which the instrument of gift was made at Rs. The respondent ought to have indicated in his order the grounds and materials on the basis of which he disagreed with the valuation of the gifted property as made in the instrument of gift and valued the property in respect of which the instrument of gift was made at Rs. 30 0 The respondent ought also to have given reasons for imposing penalty at three times the deficient portion of the proper stamp duty and indicated why a lesser or higher penalty was not imposed on the petitioners in the circumstances of the case. The order therefore is vitiated also on account of this infirmity. ( 11 ) WE therefore allow the petition and make the rule absolute by issuing a writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside the order dated February 17 1965 passed by the Collector of Kaira under sec. 39 (1) (b) of the Act. The respondent will pay the costs of the petition to the petitioners. .