Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 320 (GAU)

Stamp Vendors Association v. State of Assam

2017-03-14

A.K.GOSWAMI

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. Heard Mr. C.S. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos. 5, 7, 9 to 14, 16 to 20, 22 to 25, Mr. E. Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 26, 27 and 28, Ms M. Bhattacharjee, learned State counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. P. Nayak, learned standing counsel, Finance Department appearing for respondent No. 4. 2. The petitioners had approached this Court earlier by filing a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was registered as WP(C) No. 681/2014. 3. A perusal of the order dated 12.2.2014 passed in the aforesaid writ petition goes to show that the writ petitioners had prayed for a direction to the respondents to recall the Non-Judicial Stamp and Court Fee Vending Licenses issued to the private respondent Nos. 5 to 25 and had also prayed for a direction not to issue Vendor's code numbers to the said private respondents. It is also evident that a representation dated 8.1.2014 made to the Deputy Commissioner by the All Assam Stamp Vendors Association, Dhubri was pending consideration. 4. The writ petition was disposed of without hearing the present respondent Nos. 5 to 25 who were also arrayed as respondent Nos. 5 to 25 in the aforesaid writ petition, by directing the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri to take on record the said representation dated 8.1.2014 and to dispose of the same after hearing all the parties as expeditiously as possible. It was also made clear that issuance of Vendor's code number to the private respondent Nos. 5 to 25 shall be subject to the outcome of the exercise to be carried out in terms of the said order. 5. Subsequently, the order dated 31.5.2014 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri, which is annexed as Annexure-12 to the present writ petition, in essence, upholding the licences. 6. Thereafter, the present writ application was filed on 9.6.2014 and this Court vide order dated 11.6.2014 directed maintenance of status quo on the new Vendors' licence granted to respondent Nos. 5 to 25. 7. 6. Thereafter, the present writ application was filed on 9.6.2014 and this Court vide order dated 11.6.2014 directed maintenance of status quo on the new Vendors' licence granted to respondent Nos. 5 to 25. 7. Perusal of the order dated 31.5.2014 goes to show that contrary to the direction issued by this Court to the Deputy Commissioner to hear the parties and thereafter to dispose of the representation dated 31.5.2014, hearing was conducted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Revenue and thereafter, the order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and ors v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transportation and anr., reported in AIR 1958 SC 308, had held that if the hearing is conducted by an authority and the order is passed by another authority, the same militates against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, on this count alone the order dated 31.5.2014 cannot be sustained in law, especially when the Court had directed disposal of the representation by the Deputy Commissioner after hearing all the parties. 9. Mr. Choudhury has, however, submitted that the order dated 31.5.2014 is not directly challenged in the writ petition and therefore, this aspect of the matter may not be gone into by the Court. 10. Though the order dated 31.5.2014 is not directly challenged in the writ petition, an interim prayer was made to suspend operation of the said order. 11. The petitioner had prayed for declaring the indiscriminate grant of Vendor's licence as illegal, arbitrary as well as for cancelling/recalling the licences already issued to the private respondent Nos. 5 to 25 and also not to issue code numbers to the private respondents. 12. In the backdrop of the aforesaid prayers, when the issue is with regard to legality of grant of Vendors' licences, I am of the considered opinion that relief prayed for by the writ petitioners can be suitably moulded when violation of principle of natural justice as well as direction of this Court is writ large on the face of the order dated 31.5.2014. The issue could have been looked from a different perspective if factual issues were involved. But when no factual issues are required to be addressed, I am of the considered opinion that technicalities should not come in the way of rendering justice. 13. The issue could have been looked from a different perspective if factual issues were involved. But when no factual issues are required to be addressed, I am of the considered opinion that technicalities should not come in the way of rendering justice. 13. Taking that view, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the order dated 31.5.2014, the same is quashed. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri is directed to dispose of the representation dated 8.1.2014 after hearing the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 5 to 28. 14. Since the matter has been lingering so long, the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri. 15. Any of the parties can produce a certified copy of this order before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri for his doing the needful. 16. Till such time the exercise is carried out, status quo on the licences of respondent Nos. 5 to 28 as on today shall be maintained.