Heard Mr. Darji, learned advocate for the petitioner. 2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed that:-
“13(B) Allow this Special Civil application and be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other writ order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order no. STAMP/NKSHAN/306/10/6296 dated 18/10/2010 (Annexure-A) passed by the Collector and Additional Superintendent of Stamps, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar.
(C) Pending admission, hearing and till final disposal of this petition be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of order no. STAMP/NKSHAN/306/10/6296 dated 18/10/2010 (Annexure-A) passed by the Collector and Additional Superintendent of Stamps, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar.”
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 18.10.2010 whereby the petitioner's licence as stamp vendor, i.e. licence No.S.B./326-327/96, is cancelled w.e.f. 1.4.2011.
4. From the facts stated in the petition and submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner, it appears that somewhere in 1996, the petitioner was granted licence as a stamp vendor and since then, the petitioner was engaged in selling judicial stamp papers on strength of the said licence. It is also claimed that the licence was renewed until 31.3.2011.
4.1 It appears that certain criminal proceedings came to be initiated by way of CR No.I-65 of 2011 wherein complaint/FIR was registered on 2.4.2011. In the said complaint/FIR, the petitioner is one of the accused persons.
4.2 It also emerges from the record that subsequently, the petitioner was arrested on 4.4.2011 and under order dated 15.7.2011 passed in Cr.M.A.No.9170 of 2011, the petitioner came to be enlarged on regular bail by the High Court. In the said order dated 15.7.2011, the Court observed that:-
“In view of the fact that charge-sheet is filed and investigation is over and all material which includes documents of the present petitioner regarding stamp register, etc. are in custody of the prosecution, and principally, on the basis of that, she being lady is ordered to be released on bail.”
It also emerges from the record that show-cause notices dated 11.1.2011 and 4.3.2011 were issued and served to the petitioner.
The petitioner appears to have submitted her reply to the said show-cause notices vide communications dated 24.1.2011 and 21.3.2011.
Thereafter, the impugned order dated 18.10.2011 came to be passed whereby the competent authority has cancelled petitioner's licence to work as stamp vendor.
5. Initially, when the petition was filed, the details about the proceedings which have ensued in connection with the complaint/FIR filed against the petitioner and other accused persons were not mentioned and the petitioner had made reference only of the Cr.M.A.No.9170 of 2011, which was filed by her wherein she prayed for regular bail.
However, the details about other proceedings, including the proceedings initiated in this Court for anticipatory bail by one of the other accused persons in connection with the complaint/FIR were not mentioned. Subsequently, the petitioner circulated a draft amendment dated 26.7.2012. Under order dated 26.7.2012, the request for amendment in the petition was granted. Accordingly, the petitioner had amended the petition in terms of the draft amendment dated 26.7.2012. Now, the petitioner has placed on record the details of the order dated 13-18.10.2011 passed in Cr.M.A.No.10757 of 2011 and order dated 15.6.2012 passed in Cr.M.A.No.4348 of 2012, which was of the co-accused.
6. Mr. Darji, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned order has been passed without considering any relevant material and the authority appears to have proceeded on the basis of the newspaper articles and other extraneous details. It is also submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 and that since the trial in connection with the criminal case is not over, the petitioner should not be visited with the impugned order.
In light of above facts, Mr. Darji, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable.
7. From the documents which are placed on record by the petitioner, it emerges that the criminal proceedings involving serious and grave issues and arising from allegations about sale of forged and fabricated stamp papers, is pending against the petitioner.
The Court has, while considering the applications for regular bail and anticipatory bail, noticed that according to the authorities of Treasury Office, certain stamp papers which were not supplied by the Treasury Office to the petitioner are allegedly sold by the petitioner. Of course, the trial in connection with the said allegations and charges is pending.
However, the fact remains that the charges and allegations against the petitioner are of serious nature and directly related to the petitioner's licence to work as stamp vendor.
7.1 Having regard to the nature of the licence which was granted to the petitioner and the activities which the petitioner could carry- on on the strength of the said licence, the charges and allegations levelled against the petitioner can be said to be of very serious and grave nature.
When the charges and allegations about sale of forged or fabricated stamp papers are levelled against the stamp vendor and when the authorities have prima-facie found and reported that the petitioner sold such stamp paper which according to the authorities, were never supplied by the Treasury Office, to the petitioner, then, such charges and allegations become more serious and cannot be considered casually or light heartedly.
7.2 In background of such facts and circumstances, when the competent authority has, after issuing the show-cause notices and after inviting reply/explanation from the petitioner and after considering petitioner's explanation/reply and other relevant aspects, passed the order which is impugned in present petition, then, the said order cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary.
The competent authority has, upon examination of the stamp register maintained by the petitioner and the details of release of the stamp papers by Treasury Office, noticed that the petitioner anti-dated the stamp papers and sold such documents to the co- accused of the said criminal case and when in view of that finding the order is passed, then, the order cannot be said to be without any basis or the order cannot be said to be an order passed on extraneous and irrelevant material.
7.3 While considering petitioner's reply to the show-cause notices, the competent authority also considered the sale register/ stamp-register for the relevant period and also examined the details with reference to stamp paper Nos.E882898 as well as K319944 and K373282 and also took into consideration the dates of release (by treasury office) of the stamp papers vis-a-vis dates of sale of the said stamp papers as per the sale/stamp register and other relevant details and after examination of all those aspects, the competent authority came to the conclusion which are recorded in the impugned order.
Therefore, it also cannot be said that the impugned order is unreasoned or non-speaking order.
8. On overall consideration of the impugned order and other material, which is placed on record of present petition, it cannot be said that the impugned order is perverse or arbitrary or has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the seriousness of the charges and allegations against the petitioner, it also cannot be said that the impugned order is unjust and unreasonable. The actions are taken also as a precautionary measure, pending the trial, considering seriousness of allegations and charges and that therefore also, the order cannot be considered as unjustified.
8.1 Mr. Darji, learned advocate for the petitioner, has also admitted that the last renewal of licence was from 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2011 and after 31.3.2011, any order renewing the period of licence was not passed. Therefore, otherwise also, the period of licence had come to an end w.e.f. 31.3.2011 and that therefore, the petitioner otherwise also did not have any licence to act as stamp vendor after 1.4.2011.
8.2 Under the circumstances, the impugned order does not appear to be illegal or arbitrary or unreasonable and the petitioner has failed to make out any case against the impugned order.
In view of foregoing discussions and observations, present petition fails and stands disposed of accordingly. Notice is discharged.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc