Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1985 DIGILAW 1214 (ALL)

Madan Gopal Agrawal v. District Magistrate

1985-12-19

H.N.SETH, J.N.DUBEY

body1985
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 7.9.1976 of the District Magistrate, Etah cancelling the Petitioner's licence for vend of stamps Under Rule 154 of U.P. Stamp Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). 2. It appears that the Petitioner who has been selling stamps for last several years under the licence granted to him by the District Magistrate, Etah under Rule 151 of the Rules, was intimated by the District Stamp Officer vide his letter dated 20.3.1976 that his licence has been suspended by the District Magistrate. Subsequently, on 3.5.1976 a charge sheet was served upon him. The Petitioner submitted explanation to the charge sheet on 5.5.1976 stating that none of the charges mentioned in the charge sheet were made out against him. He also filed affidavits of several persons to disprove the charges leveled against him. On receipt of the explanation of the Petitioner the District Stamp Officer sought some clarification from the Topsider Kasganj and then submitted his report to the District Magistrate on 6.9.1976 stating that the charges against the Petitioner were proved. The District Magistrate accepting the report of the District Stamp Officer cancelled the licence of the Petitioner on 7.9.1976. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has come up to this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 4. The charge sheet served upon the Petitioner contained only two charges, first charge against the Petitioner was that on 25.10.1975 one of the persons sitting on his seat had beaten the brother of a contractor and had thus disturbed the peace while the second charge against him was that instead of selling stamps of higher denominations he sold stamps of lower denominations to three persons on 21st and 29th March, 1976. The explanation of the Petitioner to charge No. 1 was that neither the incident of 25.10.1975 had taken place at his seat nor the person involved in the said incident had any concern with him. His explanation to the second charge was that the stamps of higher denominations were not available in the Treasury from 21st to 29th March, 1976 and hence he had no option but to sell the stamps of lower denominations in accordance with the instructions contained in the circular issued by the State Government. His explanation to the second charge was that the stamps of higher denominations were not available in the Treasury from 21st to 29th March, 1976 and hence he had no option but to sell the stamps of lower denominations in accordance with the instructions contained in the circular issued by the State Government. From the materials on record it appears to us that the Petitioner had no direct concern with the incident of 25.10.1975 but even assuming that one of the persons involved in the incident had been sitting on his seat prior to the incident no action could legally be taken against him Under Rule 154 of the Rules on this ground. The conduct of the Petitioner permitting the undesirable elements to sit on his seat may have been amenable to some administrative action by the authority permitting him to occupy the seat but it had no connection with the discharge of his duties in pursuance of the licence issued to him Under Rule 151 of the Rules. Action against the Petitioner Under Rule 154 of the Rules could be taken only for some act or omission on his part in discharge of his duties under the U.P. Stamp Act and Rules framed there under. Since the permission by the Petitioner to undesirable elements to sit on his seat does not violate any provision of U.P. Stamp Act, Rules or condition of licence the District Magistrate was not legally justified in cancelling his licence Under Rule 154 of the Rules on that ground. 5. Coming to the second charge leveled against the Petitioner we find that from the own case of the opposite pasties stamps of higher denominations were not available in the Sub-treasury between 21st to 29th March, 1976 and, therefore, the Petitioner committed absolutely no illegality or irregularity in selling the stamps of lower denominations to few persons during that period. Moreover, unless it was proved that all the stamps sold by the Petitioner to the persons concerned during that period were to be utilised by each of them for one single instrument, for which there is no material on record, no action could legally be taken against the Petitioner Under Rule 154 of the Rules on the ground of his selling stamps of lower denominations instead of higher denominations to a few persons. For instance, according to the opposite parties, the Petitioner sold two stamp of Rs. 75/- each to Smt. Natthi Devi who wanted the stamps for a sum of Rs. 150/-. Now, if the stamps of Rs. 150/- were to be utilized by Smt. Natthi Devi for one instrument then it could be said that the Petitioner should have sold her one stamp of Rs. 100/- and one of Rs. 50/- but suppose she wanted to utilize the stamps of Rs. 150/- for two instruments of Rs. 75/- then the Petitioner committed no illegality or irregularity in supplying her two stamps of Rs. 75/- each. Similar will be the position with respect to stamp sold to Manbir Singh etc. In other words, before any action could be taken against the Petitioner for selling of stamps of lower denominations instead of higher denominations it was to be established by the opposite parties that the stamps sold by the Petitioner to Smt. Natthi Devi and others between 21st to 29th March, 1976 were to be utilized by each of them for one single instrument. Since there is no material on record to prove that the stamps sold by the Petitioner to Smt. Natthi Devi and others were to be utilized by each of them for one single instrument, in our opinion, the District Magistrate was not legally justified in taking any action against the Petitioner Under Rule 154 of the Rules on this ground as well. 6. The Petitioner has also challenged the impugned order of the District Magistrate on the ground that it was not a speaking order but in view of our above findings it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on this point. 7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed with costs and the order dated 7.9.1976 of the District Magistrate, Etah is quashed.