2021 Supreme(All) 193

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Ajay Bhanot, JJ.
All U.P Stamp Vendors Association - Petitioner
versus
Union Of India And 3 Others – Respondent
WRIT - C No. - 11738 of 2020
Decided On : 10-02-2021

Point of law: Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution accords fundamental right to carry on any profession, occupation, trade or business which is subject to imposition of reasonable restriction in general public interest by the State under Article 19(6). The petitioners have no fundamental right to sell E-Stamp or for appointment as an agent under Rule 12 of the E-Stamp Rules. Amount of commission/service charge/fee as may be or has been offered by the respondent no.4 to persons for appointment as agent under Rule 12, does not infringe Article 19(1)(g).

Headnote:

Indian Stamp Act 1899 – Section 10 – U.P. Stamp Rules 1942 – Rule 12, 152 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 19, 21, 226, 38 – Writ of certiorari – Appointment of authorised collection centers – Writ petition has been filed praying for the relief to Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the agreement issued by the respondent no. 4 for the appointment of authorised collection centers which has been marked as Annexure no. 4 to this writ petition – To Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 4 to reconsider the agreement under challenge and to disclose the commission earned by the respondent no. 4 by the State Government. – To Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Circular dated 17.01.2020 marked as Annexure no. 5 to this writ petition – To Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents nos. 2 and 3 not to discontinue the printing of physical judicial and non judicial stamps – To Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned letter/order issued by the respondent no. 3, which has been marked as Annexure no. 7 to this writ petition – To Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents nos. 2 and 3 to reconsider the claim of the petitioner as per Annexure no. 6 to this writ petition – To Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus whereby directing the respondents nos. 2 and 3 to fix the commission of the petitioner's members as per Rule 161 of the Rules, 1942.

Finding of the court: Rule 12 of the E-Stamp Rules 2013 provides that the Central Record Keeping Agency may appoint agent(s) called "Authorised Collection Centre” to act as an intermediary between the Central Record - Keeping Agency and the Stamp duty payer for collection of Stamp duty. – Thus, if members of the petitioners apply for and are appointed as “Authorised Collection Centre” by the respondent No.4, then their status shall be of an agent of the respondent No.4. As per the aforesaid Rule 12 the Service Charges, Commission or fee etc. payable to the “Authorized Collection Centre" shall be paid by the Central Record – Keeping Agency i.e. the respondent No.4 at their own level as mutually agreed between them. – Thus it is wholly within the choice of licenced stamp vendors either to agree to work as agent of respondent No. 4 on the commission/service charge/fee as may be offered to them by the respondent no.4 or not to agree. – By no stretch of imagination it infringe Article 19(1) (g) or Article 21 or Article 38 of the Constitution of India. The entire submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard is totally baseless and without substance. – Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot direct the respondent no.4 to agree to pay to ACC commission/service charge/fee as may be demanded by the petitioners in contrast to the mutually agreed amount under Rule 12 of the E-stamp Rules and enter into contract on that basis with a licensed stamp vendor for his appointment as agent (A.C.C.). – Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution accords fundamental right to carry on any profession, occupation, trade or business which is subject to imposition of reasonable restriction in general public interest by the State under Article 19(6). – Petitioners have no fundamental right to sell E-Stamp or for appointment as an agent under Rule 12 of the E-Stamp Rules. – Amount of commission/service charge/fee as may be or has been offered by the respondent no.4 to persons for appointment as agent under Rule 12, does not infringe Article 19(1)(g). – Article 21 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. – Apprehension of lower income than the desired income as an agent under Rule 12 does not attract Article 21 of the Constitution. – Article 38 is the directive principle of State Policy. – Learned counsel for the petitioner has completely failed to demonstrate as to how Article 38 is attracted and is enforceable under the facts and circumstances of the present case. – Therefore, his submission with regard to Article 38 is also rejected.

Result: – Writ Petition Dismissed.