Smt. Durga Bajaj, wife of Shri Deepak Bajaj, aged about 37 years, resident of Main Road, Korba, Police Station and District-Korba, (CG) Vs State of Chhattisgarh, Through- The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, (CG)

Chhatisgarh High Court (Single Judge)

ACQA->ACQUITTAL APPEAL [ APPEAL U/S 378 ], 1196 of 2014 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 25, 2015

1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 1196 of 2014
· Smt. Durga Bajaj, wife of Shri Deepak Bajaj, aged about 37 years, resident
of Main Road, Korba, Police Station and District-Korba, (CG)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through- The Secretary, Revenue Department,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, (CG)
2. The Inspector General Registration (Stamp), Raipur, District-Raipur, (CG)
3. The District Registrar and Licensing Authority (Stamp), Korba, District -
Korba, (CG)
4. The Deputy Registrar (Stamp) Korba, District-Korba, (CG)
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondents : Ms. Smiti Sharma, Deputy Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Order On Board
25/03/2015
1. The petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the order passed
by the District Registrar and Licencing Authority, Korba revoking the
petitioner's licence for sale of stamps under Rule 27 (c) of the CG
Stamp Rules, 1942 (henceforth 'the Rules').
2. Facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the petitioner was granted a
vendor's licence under the Stamp Act and the Rules framed
thereunder, for the first time in the year 2006. The licence was
2
renewed in terms of Rule 26 (3)(c) of the Rules and on the date of
passing of the impugned order, the renewed licence was in operation.
3. One RTI activist moved an application before the Public Information
Officer, Office of District Registrar on 10.3.2014 seeking copy of
stamp register maintained by the petitioner for the period 1.11.2008 to
31.12.2008. He also sought copy of entries from 9500-9700
maintained by the petitioner in her register of the year 2008-09. The
Sub Registrar informed the RTI activist that the said register is not
available in the office. In the appeals preferred by the RTI activist
before the first Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, the appellate
authority i.e. the District Registrar issued a memo to the Sub Registrar
in response to which the Sub Registrar informed the Registrar vide
Annexure-R/1 that despite intense search the register is not available
in the office. Prior to that, the petitioner was also served a notice by
the District Registrar seeking her explanation of the fact that the
register maintained by her for the year 2008-09 is not available in the
office of Sub Registrar. The petitioner informed the Registrar vide
Annexure-P/9 that she has submitted the register maintained by her
for the year 2008-09 and it is only after submission of the said register,
her licence was renewed for subsequent years.
4. On receiving the reply, the Registrar passed the impugned order
under Rule 27 (c) of the Rules revoking licence.
5. Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
proviso to Rule 27 provides for opportunity of hearing before
3
revocation of the licence, however, no such opportunity was granted
before revocation of licence, therefore, the impugned order deserves
to be set aside.
6. Learned State counsel would submit that the District Registrar has
passed the impugned order only after hearing the petitioner, therefore,
it does not call for any interference. She would also submit that the
petitioner has an alternative remedy of preferring revision before the
Revenue Commissioner.
7. Insofar as objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the
ground of availability of alternative remedy is concerned, it would be
appropriate to mention that the petition is at the stage of final hearing.
No such objection was raised when the petition was fixed for final
hearing. Even otherwise, the petitioner is complaining violation of
principles of natural justice. It is also settled that rule of exhaustion of
alternative remedy is a rule wherein the Court has imposed restriction
on its own jurisdiction and in appropriate cases the Court can entertain
writ petition where it finds that the order is passed in violation of
principles of natural justice.
8. Rule 26 of the Rules provides for grant of vendor's licence. Rule 26(3)
(c) provides for renewal of licence for a period of 3 years at a time.
9. Rule 27 provides for revocation of licence. The said rule is
reproduced hereunder:-
“27. Revocation of licence.- A licence may be
revoked at any time by the Superintendent of
4
Stamps, or by the authority who granted it, on
the following grounds:-
(a) Breach of any stamp rule;
(b) Breach of any licence conditions;
(c) Irregularity in maintenance of records
prescribed under these rules;
(d) Incapability to store sufficient stamps for sale;
(e) Any other serious irregularity:
Provided that no order under this rule shall be
passed, unless the licensed vendor has been
given an opportunity of being heard.”
10. Proviso to Rule 27 would manifest that adherence to the principles of
natural justice is ingrained in the provision itself.
11. It has been argued by learned State counsel that the petitioner was
afforded opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order.
12. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works
Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs. Shukla and brothers1, the following
has been held:-
“14. The principle of natural justice has twin
ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be
adversely affected by the action of the authorities
should be given notice to show cause thereof
and granted an opportunity of hearing and
secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities
should give reason for arriving at any conclusion
showing proper application of mind. Violation of
either of them could in the given facts and
circumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself.
Such rule being applicable to the administrative
authorities certainly requires that the judgment of
the court should meet with this requirement with
higher degree of satisfaction. The order of an
administrative authority may not provide reasons
1 (2010) 4 SCC 785
5
like a judgment but the order must be supported
by the reasons of rationality. The distinction
between passing of an order by an administrative
or quasi-judicial authority has practically
extinguished and both are required to pass
reasoned orders.”
(Emphasis supplied)
13. In the case at hand, the petitioner was issued a letter seeking
clarification as to whether she has deposited the register for the year
2008-09. However, there is no notice by the competent authority to
the petitioner asking her to show cause as to why vendor's licence
granted to her should not be revoked for her failure to submit the
register for the year 2008-09. For a notice to be in accordance with
provision of law, notice has to specifically mention the action proposed
to be taken against an individual. No such notice making it explicit
that in the event explanation is not found to be satisfactory the licence
shall be revoked, has been issued against the petitioner. Unless the
person concerned is warned and noticed of the proposed action, it
would not be possible for the person to submit reply to defend
himself/herself against the proposed action. Moreover, the notice
asking her to deposit the register was also issued by the Registrar in
appellate proceeding wherein the Registrar was considering the
appeals filed by RTI activists under the Right to Information Act. It
was not an independent proceeding initiated against the petitioner for
revocation of licence.
14. For the foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
respondent Registrar has acted in violation of principles of natural
justice by not issuing proper show cause notice and giving opportunity
6
of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, on this sole ground the writ
petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order is
set aside. It would be open for the Registrar to draw fresh proceeding
against the petitioner in accordance with law.
J U D G E
Barve
7
HEADLINES
Cancellation of vendor's licence under Stamp Act; notice of
proposed action not issued; action taken is violative of principles of
natural justice.
149