PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.S. Singhvi, J.
Brij Bhushan Gupta - Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner, Jalandhar Division - Respondents
C.W.P. No. 4416 of 1994.
Decided On : 4 December, 2002
Stamp Vendors - Cancellation of Licences - Punjab Stamp Rules, 1934 - Rules 28(xv), 28(xiii), 29, 31, 34 - The court nullified the impugned orders on the ground of violation of rules of natural justice and non-conformance to the requirement of a speaking order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a stamp vendor, had his license cancelled due to irregularities in the sale of stamp papers and keeping of other documents. The Deputy Commissioner had made a public announcement regarding the cancellation of licenses before the issuance of show cause notices.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of licenses and the appellate orders did not conform to the requirement of a speaking order and violated rules of natural justice.
Issues: Violation of rules of natural justice, non-conformance to the requirement of a speaking order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the cancellation of licenses and the appellate orders were invalidated due to violation of rules of natural justice and non-conformance to the requirement of a speaking order.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned orders were quashed, resulting in the automatic revival of the petitioners' licenses. The competent authority was permitted to pass fresh orders in the matter after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
G.S. Singhvi, J. - The above noted petitions are being disposed of by one order because common issues of fact and questions of law arise for determination by the Court.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being noticed from C.W.P. No. 4416 of 1994.
3. Petitioner Brij Bhushan Gupta was granted licence by the competent authority under the Punjab Stamp Rules, 1934 (for short, the 1934 Rules) for sale of stamps within the District Court Compound at Jalandhar. On receipt of complaint of irregularities in the sale of stamp papers, etc., Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar deputed Shri S.K. Sandhu, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar to make enquiry in the matter. Accordingly, Shri Sandhu made enquiry and found certain irregularities in the functioning of licensed stamp vendors who were operating within the District Court Compound, Jalandhar. He then, exercising the power of Collector under the Court Fee Act and the Rules, issued notice, Annexure P-1 dated 29.10.1992 to the petitioner proposing to take action against him for the alleged violation of Rules 28(xv) and 28(xiii) of the 1934 Rules on the ground that at the time of enquiry, some documents/papers were found with him which did not relate to his business as a stamp vendor. Th details of documents found with the petitioner, as incorporated in Annexure P-1, are as under :-
1. 6 Passports in respect of Shri Vijay Kumar, Issar Singh, Jagmohan Lal, Abinash Chander Tall and Smt. Neelam Kumari;
2. Certificates for transfer of Registration in respect of five vehicles;
3. Application forms regarding Licences of Smt. Meena Kakreja and Ashok Kumar.
4. One non-judicial paper of Rs. 30 in the name of Harjinder Singh, Vill. Rahimpur, Sr. No. 2510 issued on 22.5.1992.
5. 3 Registration Certificates in respect of vehicles bearing Nos. PAX 5858, PAJ 5677, PW-08-8988.
6. One Office Copy in respect of Vehicle No. PB-02-5395 which should have been in the office of District Transport Officer, Jalandhar.
4. The petitioner filed detailed reply, Annexure P-2 dated 4.11.1992 in which he denied all the allegations. Thereafter, Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Jalandhar (respondent No. 2) passed order dated 18.2.1993 for cancellation of the petitioners licence. Appeal filed by him was dismissed by Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar (respondent No. 1) vide order, Annexure P-5 dated 7.12.1993.
5. Similar actions were initiated against other petitioners who were also duly licensed under the 1934 Rules. They were also served with show cause notices and orders cancelling their licence were passed by respondent No. 2. Appeals filed by them were also dismissed by respondent No. 1.
6. The petitioners have challenged the cancellation of their licences on the ground of violation of rules of natural justice and Rules 29 and 31 of 1934 Rules. They have averred that the entire exercise undertaken by respondent No. 2 to issue notices to them and consideration of their replies was farce because his superior officer i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar had made public announcement about cancellation of licences, even before the issuance of show cause notices. They have further averred that respondent No. 2 did not consider the replies filed by them in response to the show cause notices in a correct perspective and with open mind and the Appellate Authority brushed aside the points raised in the appeals. They have also assailed the impugned order on the ground that the same do not satisfy the test of speaking order.
7. In their written statement, the respondents have justified the cancellation of licences of the petitioners by asserting that they were found guilty of selling stamps and also keeping of other documents which they were not supposed to keep, in breach of the provisions of the 1934 Rules. However, they have not denied the averment contained in the writ petition that the Deputy Commissioner had made a public announcement on 24.10.1992 regarding cancellation of the licences.
AI
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.