IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.
O.M. Kareem, S/o. Late O.M. Muhammed - Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented by Principal Secretary (Taxes), Government Secretariat & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 16531 of 2019 (N)
Decided On : 02-02-2021
Stamp Vendor Licence - Voluntary Retirement - Kerala Manufacture and Sale of Stamp Rules, 1960 - Ext.P8 order dated 01.06.2019 - The court discussed the provisions of Rule 35 of the Kerala Manufacture and Sale of Stamp Rules, 1960, and the decision of the 1st respondent State to not issue new stamp vendor licenses due to the proposed implementation of e-stamping facility. The court upheld the decision, stating that it was taken in public interest and not arbitrary or irrational.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Civil Police Officer, sought a writ of certiorari to quash an order rejecting his application for a stamp vendor license and a writ of mandamus to compel the issuance of the license. The petitioner had taken voluntary retirement to care for his son and applied for the license in a vacancy at the premises of the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the petitioner's application for a stamp vendor license was based on the decision of the 1st respondent State to not issue new licenses due to the proposed implementation of e-stamping facility. The court upheld the decision, stating that it was taken in public interest and not arbitrary or irrational.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should interfere with the 1st respondent State's decision to reject the petitioner's application for a stamp vendor license in light of the proposed implementation of e-stamping facility.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the decision of the 1st respondent State to not issue new stamp vendor licenses due to the proposed implementation of e-stamping facility was not arbitrary or irrational, but taken in public interest. Therefore, the court found no grounds to interfere with the decision.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner took voluntary retirement while working as Civil Police Officer. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P8 order dated 01.06.2019 of the 1st respondent State, whereby his application for stamp vendor licence in the premises of this Court stands rejected. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent State to issue him stamp vendor licence in the premises of this Court.
2. On 18.06.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Government Pleader took notice for the respondents.
3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent State, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 01.09.2020, reiterating the contentions raised in the writ petition.
4. On 22.09.2020, the 1st respondent was directed to place on record an additional statement explaining the present status of introduction of e-stamping for all categories of stamps and stamp papers and the modalities for implementing e-stamping facility for judicial stamps and stamp papers, in continuation of implementation of e-stamping for non-judicial stamps and stamp papers. Along with a memo filed by the learned Senior Government Pleader, dated 17.12.2020, a copy of the letter dated 15.12.2020 of the Principal Secretary to Government, Taxes (E) Department, addressed to the learned Advocate General is placed on record.
5. On 18.12.2020, heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
6. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner was a Civil Police Officer in the Liaison Wing of Kerala Police, attached to the Office of the Advocate General. He took voluntary retirement primarily to look after his son, who is suffering from Muscular Dystrophy. On coming to know that there is a vacancy of stamp vendor in the premises of this Court, on account of the death of two licensed stamp vendors, the petitioner approached the Registrar of this Court with a request dated 03.04.2017 for no-objection certificate. Based on that request, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P1 no-objection certificate dated 20.06.2017, in which it is certified that this Court has no objection in the petitioner selling stamps and stamp papers in the premises of this Court, in the event of his appointment as stamp vendor by the appropriate authority. Ext.P1 no-objection certificate was granted subject to the condition that the petitioner is liable to vacate the premises as and when directed by this Court. As per the provisions of the Kerala Manufacture and Sale of Stamp Rules, 1960, if a licensed vendor dies, his legal representatives can apply and get that licence. According to the petitioner, in the case of two deceased licensed stamp vendors, none of their legal representatives have come forward so far.
7. After obtaining Ext.P1 no-objection certificate, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 request dated 01.07.2017 before the 2nd respondent District Treasury Officer, Ernakulam, enclosing therewith Ext.P3 application dated 27.07.2017 for stamp vendor licence, in the prescribed format. On receipt of Ext.P2 request, the 2nd respondent by Ext.P4 letter dated 20.01.2018 informed the petitioner that the Government have decided not to grant any new licence for stamp vending in the background of implementation of e-stamping facility. Ext.P4 letter refers to Ext.P5 letter dated 16.01.2016 of the Principal Secretary, Taxes (E) Department, addressed to the Treasury Director, Thiruvananthapuram. As seen from Ext.P5, the Treasury Director requested the State Government to issue guidelines in the matter of grant of stamp vendor licence, confirmation of licence, etc. In Ext.P5 letter, it was made clear that, since the Government is proposing to implement e-stamping facil
Union of India v. Dinesh Engineering Corporation
Fundamental Right - System of physical stamping - Right to trade in stamp paper - Right to trade in e stamps is evidently governed by 2013 Rules. Neither validity of these Rules nor policy initiative....
The appointment of licensed stamp vendors is governed by statutory necessity and government policy, requiring authorities to consider individual representations regarding vacancies in accordance with....
Clerical errors in official records should not lead to severe penalties, especially when no harm is caused to any party.
The court emphasized the necessity of providing notice to parties before adjudicating issues of stamp duty, affirming procedural fairness in the context of insufficiently stamped documents.
In the performance of this duty, if the authority in whom the discretion is vested under the statute, does not act independently and passes an order under the instructions and orders of another autho....
The liability to pay stamp duty on auction sale certificates is not exempted by procedural errors; legal provisions must be adhered to strictly.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner was entitled to remission under the Maharashtra IT/ITES Policy, 2009 for the expansion of its business, and the objections rais....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.