Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
All U.P Stamp Vendors Association – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and 3 Others – Respondents
Writ - C No. 11738 of 2020
Decided On : 08-04-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 19(1)(g), 21 and 38 – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Sections 74 and 75 – Uttar Pradesh Stamp Rules, 1942 – Rules 151, 161 – Uttar Pradesh E-Stamping Rules, 2013 – Appointment of Authorised collection centres – Circular – Petitioner is an association of stamp vendors engaged in occupation of distribution and sale of judicial and non-judicial stamp paper in its physical form – They question terms of a proposed agreement drawn by Stock Holding Corporation of India, Central Record Keeping Agency appointed as such under Rules, 2013 – Petitioners invoked Articles 21 and 38 of Constitution and right to livelihood as flowing from aforesaid Articles to seek a direction for continuance of system of physical stamping – They further sought to assail agreement proposed by SHCIL by seeking a direction for State respondents disclosing actual commission earned by CRA from sale of e stamps in State.
Finding of the court: Court is of considered view that petitioner has abjectly failed to lay even a rudimentary platform for writ petition being retained on board of Court and respondents being called upon to file a return in the proceedings – Petitioner has failed to establish existence of an unfettered or indefeasible right to trade in stamp paper. – That right rests solely upon grant of a license under provisions of 1942 Rules – Right to engage in that trade would thus stand governed by provisions contained in license – Proposed contract was also not established to be ultra vires aforesaid Rules. – Submission of proposed contract being unprofitable was wholly conjectural with petitioner failing to establish even prima facie that business would be unviable. – In any case if petitioner does perceive that business to be unprofitable, it is open to its members not to pursue same. – Article 19 of Constitution cannot be invoked to require Court to rework terms of the contract which is proposed or compel a party to guarantee a particular rate of profit or return. – Submission with regard to Articles 21 and 38 is found to be bereft of substance since Court has not been shown any decision of State to discontinue use of physical stamp altogether. – Petitioner has also not brought forth any convincing material which may establish a shortage of physical stamp in State or that any particular indent so placed by a licensed vendor was not honored. – It would be wholly inappropriate for Court to frame any direction commanding State to continue system of physical stamping in perpetuity – That would clearly amount to treading in field of policy, a province reserved for Executive. – It is ultimately for appropriate Government to consider what quantity of physical stamps should be permitted to be in circulation – These are clearly not issues which this Court can either rule on or dictate while exercising its powers of judicial review.
Result: Writ Petition Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The Court has heard Sri N.C. Rajvanshi, learned senior counsel ably assisted by Sri Vishesh Rajvanshi for the petitioner and Sri Kshitij Shailendra alongwith Sri Sumeet Kakkar learned counsels who have appeared for the fourth respondent. Although the State was duly served and on notice, none has appeared or addressed submissions on its behalf.
2. The papers of this writ petition have come to be placed before this Court in light of the difference of opinion expressed by the Hon’ble members constituting the Division Bench of the Court in accordance with the provisions made in Chapter VIII Rule 3 of the Rules of the Court. While Kesarwani J. upon an examination of the contentions addressed held that the writ petition would merit dismissal, Bhanot J. has held that in light of the issues which arise, the respondents must be required to file their counter affidavits in the matter to enable the Court to deal with the questions raised in greater detail.
3. The petitioner is an association of stamp vendors engaged in the occupation of distribution and sale of judicial and non-judicial stamp paper in its physical form. They question the terms of a proposed agreement drawn by the Stock Holding Corporation of India, [SHCIL] the Central Record Keeping Agency, [CRA] appointed as such under the Uttar Pradesh E-Stamping Rules, 2013, [2013 Rules]. The constituents of the petitioner association are licensed vendors appointed in terms of Rule 151 of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp Rules, 1942, [1942 Rules] framed in exercise of the powers conferred on the State Government by Sections 74 and 75 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, [Act].
4. In order to delineate the nature of the challenge which was raised in the writ petition, it would be appropriate to reproduce the reliefs sought therein: -
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned letter/order Dated 25.02.2020 issued by the Respondent No. 3, which has been marked as Annexure No. 7 to this Writ Petition.
6. 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.
7. 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.”
5. Since the provisions of the Act, the 1942 and the 2013 Rules have been exhaustively noticed and set forth in the two opinions rendered, this Court deems it unnecessary to extract the contents of those provisions except to briefly notice them in order to appreciate the challenge that is raised.
A. THE STATUTORY REGIME UNDER THE 1942 RULES
6. Under the 1942 Rules, Rule 151 envisages two classes of vendors who are authorised to deal in the distribution and sale of stamps. While the first category comprises of those who are recognised as licensed vendors ex officio, the members of the petitioner have been appointed by the Collector as licensed stamp vendors in terms of the power granted by clause (x) of Rule 151. Rule 151-B provides for the tenure of a license that may be granted to licensed vendors. Rule 1
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....
Point of law: A preliminary objection has been urged on behalf of the respondents that in a petition under Article 32, only where it is shown that there is a violation of fundamental right that the v....
The court upheld the decision of the 1st respondent State to not issue new stamp vendor licenses due to the proposed implementation of e-stamping facility, stating that it was taken in public interes....
The provisions of Section 54(c) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, are unconstitutional as they impose an arbitrary limitation on refunds for unused stamp papers, violating Article 14 of the Constitution....
A show-cause notice issued without jurisdiction, particularly regarding unregistered documents, is invalid and may be challenged to prevent unwarranted legal action.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
