Back
2006 Supreme(Guj) 340
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :RAVI R.TRIPATHI
KIRTIKUMAR INDRAVADAN SHAH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION 19014 Of 2005
Decided On : 06/21/2006
Headnote:Point in Issue :
Whether order of cancellation of licence by respondent authority sustainable.
Head Note :
Gujarat Stamp Supply and Sales Rule, 1987 - Rules 6(2), 9, 14(2), 19 and 21 - Cancellation of licence - Order of - Sustainability - Finding as to - Petitioner licence alleged to have been cancelled on account of breach of Rules 6(2), 14, 19 and 21 - Show-cause notice was issued to petitioner and to which petitioner replied in detail - The impugned order of cancellation of licence of petitioner does not contain a single reason as to why the explanation rendered by petitioner was not found satisfactory - After filing of reply by petitioner one officer on behalf of respondents filed affidavit-in reply - But on perusal it is clear that he has referred the violations of rules by petitioner which have not been referred in the show-cause notice - Court observed that it is a good example of non-application of mind by the officer concerned - In the facts and circumstances of the case Court held impugned order of cancellation of licence unsustainable hence set aside and rule made absolute.
Held :
This Court is at pains to record that the deponent a responsible officer of the State has not bothered to peruse the order which he is expected to before swearing an affidavit before this Court. This is clear from the fact that the deponent has referred to Rules 9, 14(1), 19 and 21 in Paragraph 10 of the reply. The deponent has not bothered to look at as to which rules are mentioned in the show-cause notice. Besides he has not taken care to see whether there is factual background for referring to these rules. [Para 9]
In this case, the order contains 6 pages, but of those pages, only half a page is assigned for recording the conclusions. In four and half pages, only narration of facts is found. Thereafter by recording the popular sentence, "having taken into consideration the written submissions and the statements," the guilt is recorded. The officer concerned has not bothered to record a single reason as to why the explanation rendered by the petitioner, which is said to have been taken into consideration is not found satisfactory. It is then recorded that the Rules 6(2), 14(2), 19 and 21 are found to have been clearly breached. This shows that the officer before recording, did not even bother to read the rules. [Para 13]
Law Laid Down :
A fact of which judicial notice can be taken is that higher the officer higher the responsibility, higher the duties and higher is the case required while discharging the higher duties.
Conclusion :
Impugned order of cancellation of licence of petitioner is passed without application of mind and without considering the reply to petitioner hence not sustainable.
Decided in Favour of :
Petitioner
Petition Allowed
( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that he was issued aforesaid licences vide order dated 09. 09. 1998 by the respondent No. 3 i. e. Collector and Additional Superintendent of Stamps, Gujarat State. The petitioner was holding the licence for all these years and there was no complaint for his conduct during these years. On 27. 07. 2005 an incident is alleged to have occurred. The case of the petitioner is that on 27. 05. 2005, a customer came to him and asked for a stamp paper of Rs. 20/ -. It is the case of the petitioner that at that time, he was taking lunch and, therefore, he requested the person to wait for some time. The person again approached the petitioner after 15 to 20 minutes and asked to give him the stamp paper. At that time, the petitioner was making entries of stamp papers sold to some other person, and therefore, he told the person to wait for a while, telling him that "i am giving you stamp paper after recording the same in the register". The person concerned in exceptional hurry, told the petitioner that as he has to reach the office, he should be given stamp paper immediately. The petitioner replied to him that he should not make such exceptional hurry as he has to supply the stamp papers after making necessary entries. He also told that if the petitioner will make the entries in hot hurry, he is likely to commit mistake/s. He told him that if there was such an urgency, he could have purchased the stamp paper on a previous day.
( 3 ) AT this juncture the person concerned disclosed his identity as an officer from the office of the Superintendent of stamps. He showed his identity card to the petitioner. On demand, by the officer, the petitioner tendered his register and the stock to him. The petitioner was then served with a show cause notice dated 30. 07. 2005. The said notice was replied by letter dated 08. 08. 2005. By the said reply, the petitioner has tendered his explanation to the alleged irregularities. Thereafter, the authority passed order on 11/08/2005 and canceled the licence of the petitioner.
( 4 ) THE learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that this is the case wherein the authorities have not considered the explanation of the petitioner to the so called irregularities, alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, in true perspective. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in the show cause notice, it is stated that the petitioner has committed breach of sub Rule (2) of Rule 6, sub Rule (2) of Rule 14, Rule 19 and 21 of the Rules. The learned advocate invited the attention of the Court to sub Rule (2) of Rule 6 which pertains to renewal of the licence which reads as under :-"every licence granted under sub-clause (1) may be renewed in appendix 11 for a further period of one year at the end of financial year". The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was holding a valid licence on the day on which the aforesaid incident took place i. e. on 27/07/2005. The learned advocate submitted that sub Rule (2) of Rule 14, provides for maintaining a register in the form provided in Appendix-IV and making necessary entries in the register. The learned advocate submitted that it is true that the petitioner has admitted in his reply to show cause notice that due to pressing circumstances, alleged irregularity has taken place. The allegation of the authority is that the petitioner did not make closing entries in the register, and did not draw the closing balance on 26/07/2005 and started making entries for the next date i. e. 27/07/2005. The petitioner explained
