JUDGMENT :

Abhilasha Kumari, J.

The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is to the order dated 12.11.2013, passed by the Assistant Collector, Bardoli Prant, Bardoli, District: Surat, who is arraigned as respondent No.1 in the petition, cancelling the licence of the petitioner as a Stamp Vendor.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the petition are as follows:

2.1 The petitioner was granted a licence as Stamp Vendor bearing Licence No.1/1974 under the provisions of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958. According to the petitioner, he is one of the oldest Stamp Vendors in Bardoli, District Surat. The licence of the petitioner has been renewed from time to time. The last renewal of the licence took place on 31.03.2013, for a period of one year, which was to expire on 31.03.2014. As per the petitioner, he is carrying on his duties as a Stamp Vendor ever since 1974, diligently, and no complaint of whatsoever nature has been filed against him, till date. The Mamlatdar, Bardoli, issued a Show-cause Notice dated 03.10.2013, to the petitioner, stating that in a surprise inquiry by the Assistant Collector and Mamlatdar, it was found that since the past three days, the petitioner was frequently visiting the E-Dhara Department. He was, therefore, asked to show cause within four days why his licence as Stamp Vendor should not be cancelled. The petitioner replied to the show-cause notice dated 03.10.2013, vide communication dated 08.10.2013, indicating that he has not visited the E-Dhara Branch as he is not keeping good health. However, it may be possible that his son may have done so in order to help villagers in making inquiries. Respondent No.1 issued a second Show-cause Notice dated 28.10.2013 to the petitioner, calling upon him to show cause why his licence as Stamp Vendor should not be cancelled. The petitioner replied to the said notice on 07.11.2013. However, respondent No.1 cancelled the licence of the petitioner as Stamp Vendor, vide the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.

3. Mr.R.R. Marshall, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Arpit A. Kapadia, learned advocate, has appeared for the petitioner.

3.1 It is submitted that in the first notice dated 03.10.2013, the Mamlatdar has stated that in a surprise inquiry it has come to his notice that for the past three days the petitioner is visiting the E-Dhara Department time and again and causing a disturbance in the working of the said department. No other allegation has been made against him. The petitioner replied to the said notice issued by the Mamlatdar, vide communication dated 08.10.2013, clearly stating that he has not visited the E-Dhara Department as he is not in good health and works from his own office. The petitioner has further explained that it may be possible that his son, in order to help ignorant villagers, may have accompanied them to the E-Dhara Office, though this would not be repeated in future. It is submitted that respondent No.1, latching on to this explanation of the petitioner's, issued a second notice to him on 28.10.2013. However, without taking into consideration the explanation of the petitioner that he has not visited the E-Dhara department, his licence has been cancelled merely on an assumption that his son has visited the said department.

3.2 It is next submitted that the second Show-cause Notice dated 28.10.2013, has been issued after the petitioner stated in the reply to the first notice that his son may possibly have visited the E-Dhara department. The impugned order has been passed on the ground that the son of the petitioner has visited the E-Dhara department and caused a disturbance and obstruction in its working. As such, the impugned order is beyond the first Show-cause Notice dated 03.10.2013, wherein there is no mention of the son of the petitioner, at all.

3.3 Learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that the licence of the petitioner as Stamp