Point of Law : Cancellation of license – Sale of stamp papers over and above the actual price - Cancellation of license of the petitioners by way of the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. R. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. Goswami, learned Government Advocate, Assam representing the State respondents and Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel for the Finance Department.

2. The three petitioners, who are licensed stamp vendor under the Treasury Officer, Hailakandi and under Sub Divisional Officer (Sadar), Hailakandi, had assailed the order dated 03.12.2021, whereby, the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi, i.e. the respondent No. 3 had cancelled the licenses issued in favour of the petitioners on the ground that they sold stamp papers over and above the actual price.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were issued Vendor Licenses by District Registrar and Additional Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi for selling stamp paper. The petitioner No. 1 was issued vendor license on 29.11.1997 vide license No. HRC.20/95/202, the petitioner No. 2 was issued Vendor License on 25.09.2008 vide license No. HRC.12/2005/365 and the petitioner No. 3 was issued Vendor License on 09.07.2004 vide license No. HRC.13/99/248.

4. The petitioner further contends that their licenses were duly renewed from time to time and the same has been renewed lastly for the year 2021-2022.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that after an enquiry conducted by one Assistant Commissioner; licenses of the petitioners had been cancelled on the allegation that the petitioners had sold stamp papers at a higher price than that of the actual price.

6. The petitioners further contend that while cancelling the license, the petitioners were not given any opportunity of hearing, no notice was issued to them and they were also not made aware of the complaint, on the basis of which their licenses had been cancelled.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.R. Sharma contends that the licenses of the petitioners had been cancelled without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner thereby the respondent had taken away the petitioners right to livelihood without following due process of law.

8. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel submits that every state action must be fair and fairness demands that an opportunity to be heard ought to have been given to the petitioners before taking the decision to cancel the licenses of the petitioners that too when such action was taken on the basis some complaint. Principles of natural justice demands that a person should not be condemned unheard, submits Mr. Sharma, learned counsel. Therefore, the impugned action of the State respondents is liable to be struck down and the licenses of the petitioners need to be restored, argues the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. R. Sharma.

9. Per Contra, Mr. N. Goswami, learned Government Advocate, for the State respondents submits that the stamp vendors were misleading the public with a false narration that for filing application under "Mission Basundhora", a project lunched by the State, the applications need to be filed in a stamp paper of Rs. 100/- and thus the stamp vendors were misleading the public and were trying to create an artificial scarcity of stamp papers to have undue gain and were selling the stamp papers at a higher rate.

10. It is further contended by Mr. Goswami, learned Government Advocate, relying on paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 3, that on receipt of complaint regarding artificial scarcity of stamp papers and selling of stamp papers at higher price above the sale price value, one Smti. Sari L. Lungatu, ACS, was directed to make an enquiry in this regard. The said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry by suddenly visiting the Stamp Vendors vending places and on such enquiry, found that the three petitioners were raising the price of stamp papers beyond sale value and on the basis of report such fact finding enquiry, the licenses of the vendor petitioners were cancelled.

11. From the argument, pleadings and materials available on record, it is clear that an enq