Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 479 (JHR)

Surendra Prasad Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2002-04-12

TAPEN SEN

body2002
Order In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 26.12.2000 (Annexure 7) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar in Misc. Case No. 6/99-2000 by which an earlier order dated 14.5.1997 has been confirmed whereby licence of the petitioner for selling stamps in the Deoghar Court has been cancelled. 2. Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.L. Burnwal, learned AAG appearing for the Respondents. 3. The fact of this case is that in the year 1976, the petitioner was granted Licence No. 1/76 for selling stamps within the compound of the Deoghar Court by the licensing authority. According to petitioner, the licence has been renewed regularly year after year and he has been selling stamps right from 1976. 4. On 6.5.1997 at about 9.45 a.m. an Advocate of the Court, namely, Sri Sachindra Prasad Singh purchased stamps from him worth Rs. 5/- At that time the District Treasury Officer was also inspecting the shop of stamp vendors and when he asked some questions, the petitioner did not answer because, according to petitioner, he was hard of hearing, as a result whereof the District Treasury Officer got angry, lodged a complaint making an allegation that the petitioner was selling stamps at a price more than what was fixed by the Government. Accordingly, he made a recommendation for cancellation of the licence of the petitioner. The said complaint is Annexure 12 to the writ application. 5. The petitioner has also stated that thereafter without any show cause notice or any other notice, the Deputy Commissioner cancelled the licence by order dated 14.5.1997 as contained at Annexure 3 to the writ application. According to the petitioner, neither was he given any opportunity of hearing nor had the Advocate concerned made any complaint against the petitioner and in support thereof the petitioner has relied upon Annexure 4 which according to him, is a certificate of the said Advocate stating that the petitioner had not sold stamps at an inflated rate. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of cancellation of licence, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Patna. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of cancellation of licence, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Patna. High Court vide CWJC No. 11197/97 which was however, permitted to be withdrawn so as to enable the petitioner to move the Collector for redressal of his grievance and a copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court on 29.7.1999 has been made Annexure 5 to the writ petition. 7. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed an appeal/representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar and made a prayer for restoration and renewal of his Stamp Vendor Licence No. 1/76, vide Annexure 6 which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 6/ 99-2000 and by order dated 26.12.2000 the representation of the petitioner was finally rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, vide Annexure 7 to the writ petition. 8. A counter affidavit has been filed in the instant case and attention of this Court has been drawn inter-alia to para 12 wherein it has been stated as follows :- "It is true that Sri Sachindra Prasad Singh, Advocate, Deoghar has not made any complaint but, it does not mean that the complaint made by the District Treasury Officer after inspection or inquiry made by him is not without jurisdiction or false one. In this regard it is submitted that Sri Sachindra Prasad Singh at the very instance when the inspection was made, he told to the Inspecting Officer that he paid a sum of Rs. 7.85 for a stamp of Rs. 5.15 only. It may be that under pressure or for any reasons known to Sri Sachindra Prasad Singh, Advocate, he had not stick to his version and issued a certificate giving clean chit to petitioner." The aforementioned paragraph which has been sworn by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, on reading can be split up into three specific categories in the following manner :- (a) It has been admitted that Sri Sachindra Prasad Singh has not made any complaint; (b) It has been stated that at the first instance and at the time of inspection Sri Sachindra Prasad Singh had told the Inspecting Officer about the petitioner's act of charging higher rates; and (c) It has further been stated that it could be a case where the said Sachindra Prasad Singh, Advocate has given the certificate either under pressure or for any other reason known to him. 9. 9. What is important in the aforesaid three categories of the statements made by the Deputy Commissioner is that there is a complete contradiction inasmuch as the sentence begins by making an admission that it is true that Advocate concerned had not made any complaint. Finally the conclusion of the Deputy Commissioner is that it could be a case where Sri Sachindra Prasad Singh may have acted under pressure later on. 10. These are disputed question of facts and this Court cannot come to a specific conclusion as to whether in fact Sri Sachindra Prasad Singh had made the complaint or not but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that petitioner's licence apparently has been cancelled on 14.5.1997 for allegedly having charged a sum of Rs. 2.70 (Rs. 2 and paise 70 only) more than the rate fixed by the Government. 11. This Court feels that the petitioner has already undergone sufficient punishment by having had his licence kept in a state of cancellation from 14.5.1997 till date. In that view of the matter, and the charge against the petitioner being absolutely trivial in nature and that too where there is no positive indication as to whether Sri Sachindra Prasad Singh had in fact made the complaint against the petitioner, the same having been retracted by his own certificate as contained at Annexure 4, the impugned orders should now finally see its conclusion by being set aside. Consequently, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the licensing authority (Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar) to pass an order in accordance with law after taking into consideration the observations made above. 12. The petitioner is, therefore, given liberty to produce a copy of this order, along with a copy of this writ petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar and the said authority shall pass final orders in the manner indicated above within a period of ten days from the date, he receives the same. 13. With the aforementioned observations/directions, the writ application is allowed but there shall be no order as to costs.