JUDGMENT A.G. Qureshi, J. 1. This order shall govern the disposal of M. P. No. 1019 (Suresh Deole v. Chief CIT) and M. P. No. 1077 of 1989 (Avinash Kutumbale v. Chief CIT). 2. The petitioner in M. P. No. 1019 of 1989, Suresh Deole, is practising as an architect since 1970. He obtained his degree in Architecture in the year 1969 from Maulana Azad College of Technology, Bhopal. The petitioner was a duly registered valuer under the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, vide order of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated January 20, 1986. Thereafter, Section 34AB and other corresponding provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called "the Act"), were amended by the Finance Act of 1988 with effect from June 1, 1988, and the name of the Chief Commissioner was substituted in the place of the Central Board of Direct Taxes in respedt of according registration. The provisions contained in Chapter VII-B of the' Act were also amended with effect from June 1, 1988, and Section 34AE was inserted requiring the existing registered valuers to apply afresh. According to the petitioner, as he was not a valuer registered immediately before June 1, 1988, having been granted registration on January 20, 1986, he did not fall within the category of these persons who were required to apply afresh for continuation of their registration as a valuer. However, on the advice of the local Income-tax Department and by way of abundant caution, the petitioner sent an application to respondent No. 1 for renewal of the registration of the petitioner as a valuer. Whereupon, the petitioner received a letter dated May 24, 1989, from respondent No. 1 informing the petitioner that his application for renewal has been rejected because his income for the last ten years was less than Rs. 50,000 per annum and, therefore, he did not fit in the category evolved by the Board in this behalf. According to the petitioner, the order rejecting his application on the basis of the income is against the law and the Rules. The Rules framed under the Act do not provide for any criterion pertaining to minimum income as a condition of eligibility for registration. Therefore, respondent No. 1 could not reject the application of the petitioner. Consequently, the rejection of the application is illegal. The Rules framed under the Act do not provide for any criterion pertaining to minimum income as a condition of eligibility for registration. Therefore, respondent No. 1 could not reject the application of the petitioner. Consequently, the rejection of the application is illegal. A prayer, therefore, has been made for quashing the order of rejection of the application of the petitioner and directing respondent No. 1 to grant registration to the petitioner. 3. The petitioner in M. P. No. 1077 of 1989, Avinash Kutumbale, is practising as a consultant engineer since 1976 after obtaining his degree in Civil Engineering in the year 1975 from the University of Indore. He is also a chartered engineer. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 1, the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, is the authority under respondent No. 2, the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Union of India to grant registration to valuers of immovable properties under the Wealth-tax Act. Respondent No. 2 is a body constituted under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963, and was empowered to deal with and issue licences to the registered valuers of immovable properties prior to the amendment of Section 34AB of the Act by the Finance Act, 1988, with effect from June 1, 1988, and respondent No. 3 is the Union of India. Before the amendment, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (hereinafter called "the Board") was empowered to register persons possessing the requisite qualifications as registered valuers under the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 (hereinafter called "the Rules")- The petitioner possessing the requisite qualifications for registration as a valuer applied to the Board for getting himself registered as a valuer, vide application dated September 22, 1987. On receiving the application, the Board raised certain queries under its letter dated October 9, 1987, which were duly replied by the petitioner, vide his letter dated October 28, 1987. After replying to the queries the petitioner expected that he would be registered as a registered valuer, but the Board again raised objections and called for more information by its letter dated November 9, 1987. The petitioner, in compliance with the aforesaid queries, furnished the desired information, vide his letter dated November 21, 1987. After replying to the queries the petitioner expected that he would be registered as a registered valuer, but the Board again raised objections and called for more information by its letter dated November 9, 1987. The petitioner, in compliance with the aforesaid queries, furnished the desired information, vide his letter dated November 21, 1987. Thereafter, the Board again sent a letter dated December 1, 1987, asking the petitioner to furnish details of professional income in Indian currency received by the petitioner during the years 1982, 1983 and 1984, the period during which the petitioner was outside India Accordingly, the petitioner, on December 8, 1987, furnished the desired information. However, the Board did not register the petitioner as a valuer despite repeated reminders by the petitioner which have been filed as annexures K-1 to K-4 with the petition. Finally, on May 21, 1988, the petitioner approached the Board and the Union of India, through a letter and personally when the latter was on tour to Indore. Thereafter, to the surprise of the petitioner, respondent No. 1, by his letter dated July 4, 1989, informed the petitioner that the application of the petitioner has been rejected because the income of the petitioner is less than Rs. 50,000 per annum. The petitioner, thereupon, made a representation for reviewing the order of rejection, but the review application was not decided till the filing of this petition. According to the petitioner, the order impugned rejecting the application of the petitioner is not in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. He has, therefore, sought the issuance of a writ against respondent No. 1 to grant registration to the petitioner for which he has made the application and quash the order of the rejection of the application of the petitioner for being registered as a valuer under the Act. 4. In reply, respondent No. 1 in M. P. No. 1019 of 1989 has stated that, in view of the provisions contained in Section 34AE(1) of the Act which has come into force with effect from June 1, 1988, it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to apply afresh for continuation of his registration. 4. In reply, respondent No. 1 in M. P. No. 1019 of 1989 has stated that, in view of the provisions contained in Section 34AE(1) of the Act which has come into force with effect from June 1, 1988, it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to apply afresh for continuation of his registration. Since the name of the petitioner was included in the name of valuers immediately before June 1, 1988, the petitioner was under an obligation to apply for the renewal of the registration under the amended provisions and, therefore, the petitioner has rightly made an application under Sub-section (2) of Section 34AE. As regards the legal position, it has been submitted that Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8A and other rules were amended by the Central Board of Direct Taxes by notifying the Wealth-tax (Second Amendment) Rules, 1988, effective from June 1, 1989. It, inter alia, provides that in Sub-rule (2), for the words "not less than five years" wherever they occur the words "not less than ten years" shall be substituted and Sub-rule 13A was also inserted in the Rules wherein it has been provided that the sub-rules as they stood immediately before the amendment shall continue to apply in the case of a person whose name is included in the Register of Valuers immediately before the first day of June, 1988, and who makes an application for continuation of his registration as a valuer under Sub-section (1) of Section 34AE, subject to the conditions mentioned in the Rules, notwithstanding the provisions contained in Sub-rules (2), (6), (7), (8) and (11), as amended. In the instant case, the petitioner was registered on January 20, 1986, As, such, when the applicant applied for continuation of registration, he has not already obtained an experience of five years as a registered valuer. Therefore, by virtue of the new Sub-rule (13A), the petitioner is not qualified to continue as a registered valuer. It has further been submitted that Section 46 of the Wealth-tax Act gives the Central Board of Direct Taxes power to make rules. The Board, in its meeting held on July 8, 1977, decided the criteria to be followed while implementing the provisions of Rule 8A(2)(ii)(B). It has further been submitted that Section 46 of the Wealth-tax Act gives the Central Board of Direct Taxes power to make rules. The Board, in its meeting held on July 8, 1977, decided the criteria to be followed while implementing the provisions of Rule 8A(2)(ii)(B). While deciding the criteria it was decided that, in the five years' experience required for registration, for at least three years, the practice of the applicant should not be less than Rs. 15,000 per annum, and if he has been a partner of a firm, the proportionate share of the gross receipts should not be less than Rs. 15,000. The Board, after a lapse of 11 years, raised the aforesaid monetary criteria from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 50,000 in view of the rising cost of living index. Therefore, the decision is not unreasonable. Respondent No. 1 has, therefore, acted on the criteria fixed by the Board and, as the case of the petitioner did not fall within the said criteria, his application was rejected. Therefore, the rejection of the application of the petitioner is neither arbitrary nor capricious. 5. In reply to the petitioner in M. P. No. 1077 of 1989 also, the petition has been resisted on the ground that, initially on July 8, 1977, the Board had fixed the criteria for implementation of the Rules for registration of the valuers wherein an income of Rs. 15,000 per year for the three years out of the five years of practice was one of the conditions for eligibility for registration and that mandatory criteria has been revised by the Board after 11 years and the income of Rs. 15,000 has been substituted by Rs. 50,000. As the petitioner has not been able to show that his income is in accordance with the criteria fixed by the Board respondent No. 1 has rightly rejected his application for registration. 6. The questions involved in the two petitions being identical, both the petitions are being decided by this common order. 7. 15,000 has been substituted by Rs. 50,000. As the petitioner has not been able to show that his income is in accordance with the criteria fixed by the Board respondent No. 1 has rightly rejected his application for registration. 6. The questions involved in the two petitions being identical, both the petitions are being decided by this common order. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri G. M. Chaphekar and Shri Kulshreshta, have mainly challenged the orders impugned on the ground that neither in the Act nor in the Rules has a power been given to the authorities concerned to fix a monetary criterion in addition to the criteria fixed by the Rules under the Act Therefore, respondent No. 1 is in error in taking the decision of the Central Board of Direct Taxes into consideration while deciding the application of the petitioners. No power has been given to the Central Board of Direct Taxes to issue executive instructions in respect of registration of valuers except those provided in the Rules. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Revenue, Shri V. S. Samvatsar, has argued that, for the implementation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, the Central Board of Direct Taxes has power to make rules under Section 46 of the Act and, therefore, the Board is empowered to lay down a monetary criterion as a condition of eligibility for registration of valuers under the Act. The criterion so fixed is neither arbitrary nor capricious and has been fixed in accordance with the powers given to the Board under the Act. 9. To appreciate the respective contentions of the parties, let us first look at the relevant provisions of the Act in respect of registration of valuers. The relevant portion of Section 34AB of the Act reads as under : "34AB(1) The Chief Commissioner or Director-General shall maintain a register to be called the Register of Valuers in which shall be entered the names and addresses of persons registered under Sub-section (2) as valuers. (2) Any person who possesses the qualifications prescribed in this behalf may apply to the Chief Commissioner or Director-General in the prescribed form for being registered as a valuer under this section : Provided that different qualifications may be prescribed for valuers of different classes of assets ..." 10. (2) Any person who possesses the qualifications prescribed in this behalf may apply to the Chief Commissioner or Director-General in the prescribed form for being registered as a valuer under this section : Provided that different qualifications may be prescribed for valuers of different classes of assets ..." 10. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is manifest that the power rests with the authorities to prescribe different qualifications for valuers of different classes of assets, and, therefore, a person who possesses the qualifications as prescribed can be registered as a valuer. Now, the word "prescribed" shall always be construed to mean "prescribed by rules" by the rule-making authority. When the Legislature uses the word "prescribed" in an enactment, it is always a normal expression for conferring a power on the executive to make rules. Therefore, the qualification of the valuers has to be in accordance with the Rules framed under the Act. 11. Now, Rules have been framed by the Central Board of Revenue in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 46 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, wherein Rule 8-A prescribes the qualifications for registration of registered valuers. The provisions of Rule 8A(1) say that, for the purpose of subsection (2) of Section 34AB, the qualifications for registration as valuers of different classes of assets shall be as specified in Sub-rules (2) to (11). Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8A provides for the qualifications of a valuer of immovable property. The rule reads as under : "8A(1) For the purposes of Sub-section (2) of Section 34AB, the qualifications for registration as valuers of different classes of assets shall be specified in Sub-rules (2) to (11). (2) A valuer of immovable property (other than agricultural lands, plantations, forests, mines and quarries) shall have the following qualifications, namely : (i) he must either be a graduate in civil engineering, architecture or town planning of a recognised university, or possess a qualification recognised by the Central Government for recruitment to superior services or posts under the Central Government in the field of civil engineering, architecture or town planning ; and (ii) (A) he must be a person formerly employed- (a) in a post under the Government as a gazetted officer ; or (b) in a post under any other employer carrying a remuneration of not less than Rs. 2,000 per month, and, in either case, must have retired or resigned from such employment after having rendered service for not less than ten years as a valuer, architect or town planner, or in the field of construction of buildings, designing of structures or development of land ; or (c) as a professor, reader or lecturer in a university, college or any other institution preparing students for a degree in civil engineering, architecture or town planning, or for any qualification referred to in Clause (i), and must have retired or resigned from such employment after having taught for not less than ten years any of the subjects of valuation, quantity surveying, building construction, architecture, or town planning ; or (B) he must have been in practice as a consulting engineer, surveyor or architect for a period of not less than ten years and must have, in the opinion of the Board, acquired sufficient experience in any of the following fields :-- (a) valuation of buildings and urban lands ; (b) quantity surveying in building construction ; (c) architectural or structural designing of buildings or town planning ; or (d) construction of buildings or development of land." 12. On going through the afore-extracted Rules framed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in exercise of the powers given under Section 46 of the Act, for registration as a valuer of immovable property, a person should be a graduate in civil engineering, architecture or town-planning or should possess the qualification recognised by the Central Government for recruitment to superior service or in the field of engineering, architecture or town-planning or he must be a person formerly employed under the Government as a Gazetted Officer or in a post under any other employer carrying a remuneration of not less than Rs. 2,000 per month and either must have retired or resigned from such employment after completing a service of ten years as valuer, architect or town-planner or in the field of construction of buildings, designing of structures or development of land or as a professor, reader, lecturer in a university or college or any other institution preparing students for a degree in civil engineering, architecture or town-planning and, if he has resigned or retired from such employment, the total teaching experience should not be less than ten years or he must have been in practice as a consulting engineer, surveyor or architect for a period of less than ten years and must have, in the opinion of the Board, acquired sufficient experience in any of the fields of valuation of buildings and urban lands, quantity surveying in building construction, architectural or structural designing of buildings or town-planning or construction of buildings or development of lands. 13. As such, it is manifest that, in none of the provisions contained in Rule 8A(2) of the Rules, a monetary criterion in respect of practising engineers has been fixed. The law clearly says that the qualification of a registered valuer has to be prescribed by the Rules and the Rules framed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes itself under Section 46 of the Act do not provide for the financial criterion as resolved by the Board. If the Board has taken a decision to include the qualification of the gross income for a practising valuer, then that decision should have been incorporated in the Rules especially when it is the Board which frames the Rules under the delegated powers derived from the Act itself. Therefore, in our opinion, in the absence of the Rules, the administrative decision of the Board cannot be read into the Rules for holding the petitioner disqualified on that count. A discretion has, of course, been given to the registering authority to form an opinion about the acquisition of sufficient experience in the fields enumerated in entry (B) of Sub-clause (ii) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8A. But, there is nowhere any indication of the monetary criterion to form an opinion about the acquisition of experience by an applicant for registration as a valuer. But, there is nowhere any indication of the monetary criterion to form an opinion about the acquisition of experience by an applicant for registration as a valuer. Therefore, in our opinion, the Board was not right in rejecting the applications of the petitioners for renewal and fresh registration of both the petitioners on the ground that they did not have an annual income of Rs. 50,000 for a period of three years. 14. As regards the fresh application given by the petitioner, Deole, under the provisions of Section 34AE of the Act, there is no controversy pertaining to the application for renewal because, although the petitioner has challenged that he was not under an obligation to apply afresh, still he has applied for renewal of his registration. We may also look into the plea raised by respondent No. 1 in respect of the eligibility of this petitioner because of the lack of requisite experience. In this regard, it is sufficient to say that, under the provisions of Section 34AE of the Act, an application for renewal has to be treated as an application for fresh registration under Sub-section (2) of Section 34AB of the Act and, in the case of those who apply for renewal also, their applications have to be treated as applications for fresh registration. Therefore, the same rules for registration as are applicable to the persons applying for fresh registration shall be applicable in the case of persons who are already registered as valuers and who apply afresh under the provisions of Section 34AE of t.he Act. In the reply, it, has been suggested that the experience of the petitioner, Deole, is not in accordance with the Rules, but we fail to see how such a plea has been put forward by respondent No. 1. As regards the experience, the basic qualification is that a person should be a practising engineer for not less than 10 years. The petitioner is practising as an architect since 1970 and as such prima facie his experience was of about 18 years at the time of application for registration as a valuer under the Act in the year 1988. 15. In the result, the petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The order of respondent No. 1 rejecting the applications of the petitioners for being registered as valuers under the Act are quashed. 15. In the result, the petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The order of respondent No. 1 rejecting the applications of the petitioners for being registered as valuers under the Act are quashed. Respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the applications of the petitioners for registration as valuers in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 8A(2) of the Rules framed under the Act and should decide their applications as expeditiously as possible after forming an opinion in respect of the acquisition of sufficient experience in the fields as enumerated in the Rules without taking into consideration the monetary receipts of the petitioners. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.