Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1317 (RAJ)

Rakesh Kumar Mehta v. State of Rajasthan

2018-05-17

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 has been preferred by the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Mehta being aggrieved of the order (Annexure-P/6) dated 21.11.2017 whereby, the stamp vendor licence No.11/09 held by the petitioner was cancelled and so also, the consequential order (Annexure-P/7) dated 04.12.2017 whereby, the stock register and the stamp sale register of the petitioner were deposited back in the department. 3. Learned counsel Shri Usman Gani representing the petitioner vehemently urged that no inquiry whatsoever was held before cancelling the stamp vending licence of the petitioner. The complaint of overcharging on the basis whereof, the impugned order came to be passed was totally false and frivolous. The licencing authority, did not provide any opportunity to show cause or of hearing to the petitioner before passing the order (Annexure- P/6) whereby, the stamp vendor licence of the petitioner was cancelled. On these grounds, he implores the Court to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction and quash the impugned orders as being frivolous and arbitrary. 4. Shri N.S. Rajpurohit has filed reply on behalf of the respondents. In such reply, the respondents have though tried to defend the impugned orders but the pertinent assertion made on behalf of the petitioner that no bipartite inquiry was held and no opportunity to show cause was provided to the petitioner before cancelling the stamp vendor licence granted to him is not expressly denied. Furthermore, the reply is not accompanied with any statement etc. of the complainant Suresh Jain that the petitioner overcharged him while selling the stamps in question. A bald complaint by the said Suresh Jain was made the foundation of cancellation of the petitioner's stamp vendor licence. The order (Annexure-P/6) dated 21.11.2017 refers to a recommendation received from the I.G. (Stamps) for cancelling the licence held by the petitioner. However, the said recommendation has not been filed alongwith the reply of the respondents. Furthermore, neither before making any such recommendation; nor before passing of the impugned order (Annexure-P/6) dated 21.11.2017 was the petitioner provided any opportunity of hearing or showing cause. 5. In these circumstances, manifestly, the plea advanced by the petitioner in this writ petition regarding the impugned orders suffering from gross violation of principles of natural justice is thoroughly substantiated. Hence, the impugned orders do not stand to scrutiny and deserve to be quashed. 5. In these circumstances, manifestly, the plea advanced by the petitioner in this writ petition regarding the impugned orders suffering from gross violation of principles of natural justice is thoroughly substantiated. Hence, the impugned orders do not stand to scrutiny and deserve to be quashed. 6. The writ petition thus deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order (Annexure-P/6) dated 21.11.2017 and the consequential order (Annexure-P/7) dated 04.12.2017 are hereby quashed. The stamp vendor licence No.11/09 of the petitioner is restored. Stay application is disposed of.