The Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings bearing Mu.Mu.No.7865/A2/04 dated 03.08.2005 and quash the same.
2. The petitioner was a licensed stamp vendor. Petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of the licence for certain violations said to have happened in the years 1998, 1999 and 2001. The cancellation is by order dated 29.11.2004 and that has been confirmed by the appellate authority, the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Salem, the first respondent in his order dated 03.08.2005. The charge against the petitioner is that in the years 1998, 1999 and 2001, there were discrepancies in the quantity of stamp papers held by him when compared with the registers maintained by him. According to the petitioner, during the period between 25.3.88 and 1.12.2000 his mother had developed serious health problem in her throat and had to undergo a surgery and his son met with an accident which resulted in his leg thumb being removed. The further explanation of the petitioner is that the total discrepancy, based on the allegation is only Rs.4,500/- after reconciliation. The figures shown in the proceedings are excessive. The error if any is bona fide and due to aforesaid critical family situation. It is also the plea of the petitioner that he was forced to go to the hospital frequently during the relevant point of time. The above plea has not been considered properly by the original authority and the appellate authority. Further, the grievance of the petitioner is that the order of the original authority and also the appellate authority is a non-speaking order. Hence the present writ petition.
3. Heard Mr.V.Manohar, learned counsel for the respondents, who stated that the authorities have gone into the records and rejected the explanation and imposed the punishment in consonance with the nature of violation alleged.
4. On going through the order of the original authority, it does not deal with the nature of the allegations set out against the petitioner. All that has been stated is that there has been violation of Rule 25 of the Stamp Act and therefore, his licence is cancelled. The appellate authority, before whom the entire plea of the petitioner was placed, referred to various discrepancies and stated that no explanation was given by the petitioner and only the family reasons have been stated.
5. Further, the explanation submitted by the petitioner is found at page No.3 of the typeset and the reconciliation statement is at page No.5. It is also not in dispute that medical records were produced by the petitioner before the authorities. This court finds that the appellate authority has not taken into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner with regard to the reconciliation statement and the plea of the petitioner that he was mentally disturbed due to the ill-health of his mother and his son. Though reference to the same has been made, there is nothing to show on record that such documents were considered and found to be not genuine. All that the appellate authority says that the explanation is not proper.
6. This Court is inclined to interfere with the order of the appellate authority only on the ground that while rejecting the appeal, the appellate authority has not considered the reconciliation statement as stated by the petitioner and the appellate authority also has not considered the grievance with regard to the critical family situation that prevailed during the relevant point of time. The incidents alleged are at different periods of time and the petitioner states that if he is given an opportunity, he will explain with records his grievance before the appellate authority so as to consider his plea on merit and compassion.
7. In such circumstances, the order of the appellate authority is set aside only on the ground that it has been passed without appreciating the entire grievance of the petitioner and there is no discussion on merits. Accordingly, the order of the first respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted to the appellate authority, the first respondent for reconsideration the plea of the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law. The Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
ts To
1.Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Salem.
2.The District Registrar(Admn) Dharmapuri District