Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1748 (MAD)

Thandayuthapani v. The District Registrar

2004-12-20

D.MURUGESAN

body2004
Judgment :- As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is the same, with the consent of the respective learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents, the writ petitions themselves are taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this common order. 2. By the impugned orders, the licences issued to the petitioners to vend judicial, non-judicial and court fee stamps have been temporarily cancelled in exercise of power under Rule 25(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp Rules. 3. I have heard Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel and Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, learned counsel for the petitioners. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioners that a plain reading of the said rule would indicate that the respondents would have no power to pass the impugned orders of temporarily cancelling the licences, as the said rule relates to the revocation of licence after following due process of law. 4. I have heard Mr.S.Venkatesh, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents also. 5. Rule 25(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp Rules reads as under:- "Every licence granted to the vendor shall be in the form appended to this rule and shall specify the name of the licensee, the description of stamps that can be sold under the licence, the place of sale and such other matters as may be necessary. It shall be signed by the Tahsildar or the Deputy Tahsildar in independent charge as the case may be Every licence granted is revocable at any time by the authority who granted it for breach of conditions or disobedience of rules or any other valid reasons. No such order shall be passed by that authority without giving an opportunity to the persons affected to make his representation." By virtue of the said rule, every licence granted is revocable at any time by the authority who granted it for breach of conditions or disobedience of rules or any other valid reasons. Before passing any order of revocation of licence, an opportunity is also contemplated to the affected persons to make their representation. This law is also not seriously disputed by the learned Special Government Pleader. 6. As against the order of revocation passed under Rule 25(iii), the affected licensee can file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer with a further right of revision before the District Collector. This law is also not seriously disputed by the learned Special Government Pleader. 6. As against the order of revocation passed under Rule 25(iii), the affected licensee can file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer with a further right of revision before the District Collector. In this context, Rule 25(iv) is relevant and the same is extracted below:- "Rule 25(iv).--(a) Appointment of licensed vendors made by Tahsildars and Deputy Tahsildars in independent charge shall not ordinarily be interfered with by Revenue Divisional Officers unless the persons selected are clearly unsuitable or unless some one with an obviously superior claim has been overlooked. Any person aggrieved by an order of appointment or punishment of a licensed vendor may within 30 days from the date of the order, appeal against that order to the Revenue Divisional Officer. Against an appellate order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the District Collector or the District Revenue Officer as the case may be, may entertain a revision petition within 60 days from the date of order. Delays in filing appeals and revisions may be condoned in the event of valid reasons being adduced. (b) The Board of Revenue in respect of an order passed by the Collector or the District Revenue Officer as the case may be and the Government in respect of an order passed by the Board of Revenue may, within 90 days of the date of order call for the records connected with such order, either suo motu or on a revision petition by any person aggrieved by such order, in order to satisfy itself of the legality or the propriety of such order, and may pass such orders as it may deem fit. (c) No order to the prejudice of any person shall be passed by any of the authorities without giving an opportunity to him to make his representation. (d) Pending disposal of an appeal or revision petition, the authority concerned shall have power to stay the execution or suspend the operation of the order of a subordinate authority." Rule 25(iv) refers to the order passed under Rule 25(iii) as one of punishment. Both the appellate authority and the revisional authority are also entitled to stay the execution or suspend the operation of the order of the subordinate authority. Both the appellate authority and the revisional authority are also entitled to stay the execution or suspend the operation of the order of the subordinate authority. A combined reading of Rules 25(iii) and 25(iv) will make the position clear inasmuch as what is contemplated under Rule 25(iii) is only an order of revocation by way of punishment and the same is not referable to the interim order of cancellation of licence. Except the above rules, my attention has not been invited to any other rule empowering the licensing authority to order temporary cancellation of licence. 7. In view of the above, the impugned orders of temporary cancellation of the licences granted to the petitioners are set aside and the writ petitions are allowed. It is made clear that the respondents are at liberty to proceed against the petitioners under Rule 25(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp Rules for revocation of licence by following the principles of natural justice. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.Ps. are closed.