Judgment :- Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent in Pa.Mu.No.27094/No.2/2005 dated 5. 2006, and the consequential demand notice dated 15. 2006, issued by the fourth respondent in Mu.Pa.No.4020/The/2000 with respect to interest portion, as illegal and ultravires to Sec.47(A)(4) of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 as amended by Act 1 of 2000. 2. The affidavit in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side. 3. The short facts which led the petitioner to file this writ petition, are as follows: He purchased a house site in Plot No.50, in Velan Nagar, Thennampalayam Extension, comprised in Survey No.738 (corresponding T.S.No.449/3 and 449/2) and in S.F.No.740 (corresponding T.S.No.447, 448/4) in T.S.Ward No.4 (Old Ward No.20) of Tirupur Town, for a sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. When the document was presented for registration before the third respondent by valuing the property at Rs.48.50 per sq. ft., the third respondent fixed the value at Rs.645/- per sq. ft. as per the guidelines and referred the matter to the second respondent under Sec.47(A)(2) of the Indian Stamp Act. There from, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the second respondent. The second respondent, on enquiry, re-fixed the value at Rs.425/-per sq. ft. and directed the fourth respondent to collect the deficit stamp duty together with interest at the rate of 2% per month, and thereafter only, the document could be released, pursuant to which, the fourth respondent has also issued a notice. Under the circumstances, this writ petition has been brought forth before this Court. 4. The only grievance ventilated by the petitioner before this Court, is that though he is prepared to pay the stamp duty at the rate of Rs.425/-as fixed by the second respondent, the direction to pay the interest at the rate of 2% from 22. 2003, is not correct; that he is liable to make payment of interest only from 5. 2006 and not from 22. 2003; that since he has got a right of appeal, as per the available provision, he preferred an appeal, and under the circumstances, the order has got to be quashed and necessary directions be issued. 5. The Court heard the learned Additional Government Pleader on the above contentions. 6. 2006 and not from 22. 2003; that since he has got a right of appeal, as per the available provision, he preferred an appeal, and under the circumstances, the order has got to be quashed and necessary directions be issued. 5. The Court heard the learned Additional Government Pleader on the above contentions. 6. After doing so, this Court is unable to agree with the case of the petitioner. It is not in controversy that when the document was placed for registration before the third respondent, the petitioner valued the property at Rs.48.50 per sq. ft.; but, it was re-fixed by the third respondent at Rs.645/-per sq. ft., and the matter was referred to the second respondent under Sec.47(A)(2) of the Indian Stamp Act. When an appeal was preferred by the petitioner, on enquiry, it was reduced to Rs.425/-per sq. ft. by the second respondent, and a direction was given to the fourth respondent to collect the deficit stamp duty along with interest at 2% on the said amount from 22. 2003. Now, it is pertinent to point out that the second respondent has issued direction for the collection of the interest amount only from 22. 2003 and not from the date of registration namely 16. 2000. The contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the interest has got to be collected only from 5. 2006 cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that it was an appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging that order of the third respondent before the second respondent. Merely because an appeal is filed, it did not mean that the interest rate stipulated by the authority and payable by the petitioner, would get suspended. But, in the instant case, the second respondent has applied its mind properly and has also directed for the collection of interest at 2% from 22. 2003. No infirmity is noticed by this Court in applying the provision of law as one envisaged under the Indian Stamp Act. 7. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition deserves an order of dismissal, and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs are also dismissed.