K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Art. 226 of the constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the proceedings in No. SAP. 1/79 80 pending on the file of the first respondent-The Chief Controlling Revenue authority (Commissioner of Stamps) in karnataka, Bangalore and also to quash the order dated 26-4-1979 passed by him in the said proceeding on the ground that the appeal preferred before the 1st respondent was not maintainable, as in law, no such appeal is provided to the 1st respondent against the order in question passed by the Assistant Commissioner granting licence to the petitioner to vend non-judicial stamps, under the Karnataka Stamp Rules, 1958. ( 2 ) THE necessary facts for the purpose of deciding the aforesaid contention raised by Sri P. Ganapathi Bhat, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner are not in dispute. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was granted ' A ' class Stamp vendor licence by the Assistant commissioner, Mangalore. under the provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder, to vend non-judicial stamps in the compound of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Mangalore. The licence was issued on 6-4-1979 and it is valid upto 31-3 1980. The case of the petitioner is that he has been vending non-judicial stamps since that date at the Deputy Commissioner's office compound, mangalore. As against the order granting the aforesaid licence to the petitioner, the 4th respondent has preferred an appeal before the first respondent purporting to be under Rule 19 of the Karnataka court Fees and Suits Valuation Rules, 1960. The first respondent has entertained the said appeal and has passed an ex-parte interim order staying the operation of the order of the Assistant Commsssioner. The petitioner has filed an application before the first respondent for vacating the aforesaid ex-parte interim order ; but he is not deciding the same. One of the contentions raised before the 1st respondent by the petitioner was that the appeal filed by the 4th respondent before the 1st respondent is not maintainable either under the Rules framed under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, or under the rules framed under the Karnataka Stamp act,. One of the contentions raised before the 1st respondent by the petitioner was that the appeal filed by the 4th respondent before the 1st respondent is not maintainable either under the Rules framed under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, or under the rules framed under the Karnataka Stamp act,. 1957, ( 4 ) THE licence that was granted to the petitioner was the one under the provisions of Rule 14d (1) of the Karnataka Stamp rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules'. Under Rule 14c of the Rules, the assistant Commissioner in charge of a revenue sub-division is the licensing authority to grant licences in respect of the area lying w thin his jurisdiction. Rule 14d (2) of the Rules provides that any person aggrieved by the order of the licensing authority refusing to grant a licence, may, within 30 days from the date of such order, appeal to the Deputy Commissioner. In the instant case, the licence has been granted to the petitioner to vend non-judicial stamps and the said order is not appealable as there is no appeal provided against the order granting the licence to vend non-judicial stamps. The appeal is provided only against an order refusing to grant a licence and such an appeal is to be preferred before the Deputy Commissioner of the District and not before the 1st respondent. As such, the appeal preferred by the 4th respondent before the 1st respondent against the order granting licence to the petitioner to vend non-judicial stamps, is not maintainable in law. The 1st respondent also does dot enjoy any such appellate jurisdiction against such order. As such, there is no scope even to contend to treat the appeal preferred by the 4th respondent before the 1st respondent under Rule 19 of the Karnataka court-Fees and Suits Valuation rules, 1960, as the one preferred under rule 14d (2) of the Rules. ( 5 ) IN the instant case, the 4th respondent has preferred an appeal before the chief Controlling Revenue Authority i. e. . 1st respondent under Rule 19 of the Karnataka court-fees and Suits Valuation Rules, 1960. The appeal is not maintainable even under the said Rnles. Firstly, the licence in question is not granted to the petitioner under the provisions of the Karnataka court-fees and Suits Valuation Rules, 1960, for vending court-fee stamps. 1st respondent under Rule 19 of the Karnataka court-fees and Suits Valuation Rules, 1960. The appeal is not maintainable even under the said Rnles. Firstly, the licence in question is not granted to the petitioner under the provisions of the Karnataka court-fees and Suits Valuation Rules, 1960, for vending court-fee stamps. The licence granted to tine petitioner is the one under the karnataka Stamp Rules, 1958, for vending non-judicial stamps. Rules framed under the Karnataka Court-fees and Suits Valuation act, relating to grant of licence to vend stamps are regarding the vending of court-fee stamps only and the same do not apply to grant of licence for vending non-judicial stamps which is governed by the Karnataka stamp Rules, 1958. Secondly, under Rule 19 of the Karnataka Court-fees and Suits valuation Rules, 1960, the appeal is provided only against an order refusing the grant of a licence by the licensing authority to the 1st respondent and there is no appeal provided against the order granting the licence. So, looked from any point of view, the appeal preferred before the 1st respondent is not maintainable. As such, the action of the 1st respondent in entertaining the appeal preferred by the 4th respondent and passing an interim order therein is without jurisdiction. Consequently, the proceeding before the first respondent filed in the form of an appeal under Rule 19 of the Court fees and Suits Valuation Rules, is not maintainable in law and cannot be allowed to be proceeded with and as such, the said proceeding is liable to be quashed and it is accordingly quashed. In view of this the interim order passed by the first respondent dated 26-4-1976 in S. A. P. 1/79-80 (Ex. C) must fall to the ground and the same is hereby quashed. ( 6 ) THE first respondent is hereby directed to forbear from proceeding with the appeal filed by the 4th respondent in s. A. P. 1/79-80. Rule is made absolute. --- *** --- .