Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 684 (GUJ)

Jayesh Hemraj Savjani v. State Of Gujarat

2019-07-03

A.Y.KOGJE

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. RULE. Learned AGP Mr.Dhawan Jayswal waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. 2. This petition is filed for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 06.06.2017 and 24.07.2017 passed by respondent No.3 - Resident Additional Collector, Porbandar. By the aforesaid orders, renewal of the stamp vendor licence of the petitioner was refused. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the refusal is in violation of the provisions of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 read with the Gujarat Stamps, Supply and Sales Rules, 1987. It is submitted that the action against the petitioner is in breach of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that an inspection was carried out wherein five discrepancies were found. All of those five discrepancies were minor in nature and out of bonafide mistake. To the show cause notice, the petitioner had given a detailed reply on each and every discrepancy mentioned in the show cause notice. However, without taking into consideration any of the explanations given, the impugned order is passed. 3.1 It is submitted that on the basis of discrepancies observed during inspection, by show notice action contemplated was cancellation of licence by referring to Rules 14, 16 and 41 of the Gujarat Stamps, Supply and Sales Rules, 1987. Upon giving explanation, the authority did not pass any order for cancellation of licence. However, by the impugned order, refused to renew the licence which is provided for under Rule 6(2). However, for refusing such renewal on the basis of any violation, the petitioner was not served with any notice. It is submitted that cancellation of licence for alleged breach of conditions of licence and refusal to renew the licence stand on different footing. 3.2 Learned Advocate for the petitioner also submitted that the discrepancies are only minor discrepancies and that there is nothing to suggest that because of such discrepancies, the petitioner has gained some monetary benefits. He relied upon decision a decision of this Court in the case of Abdul Khalik Gulam Mohammad Sumara Vs. Collector & Addl. Supdt. of Stamps in SCA No.15660 of 2005 dated 05.05.2006. 4. Learned AGP opposed the grant of petition submitting that the discrepancies were found at the time of inspection carried out at the place of the petitioner and therefore, as the provisions of Rule 41 are invoked by the authority granting the licence. 5. Collector & Addl. Supdt. of Stamps in SCA No.15660 of 2005 dated 05.05.2006. 4. Learned AGP opposed the grant of petition submitting that the discrepancies were found at the time of inspection carried out at the place of the petitioner and therefore, as the provisions of Rule 41 are invoked by the authority granting the licence. 5. Having considered the rival submissions, it appears that the petitioner is a licenced stamp vendor for last 30 years and in due course, had made application for renewal of licence for the year 2006-17 on 16.03.2016. It appears that on the basis of such application, a surprise inspection was carried out on 01.04.2007 and five irregularities were found which were in the nature of, (i) difference in physical available stock as compared to closing stock in the register to the extent of Rs.4,01,290/-, (ii) sell of stamp was not carried out from the place mentioned in the licence, (iii) discrepancy in the names of purchasers and the signatures made by such purchasers, (iv) the Court fee stamp is not being issued and (v) from the stock register, monthly average is not being taken. With these kinds of objections, a show cause notice was issued on 24.04.2017 for cancellation of licence. To this show cause notice, the petitioner had filed his detailed reply on 15.05.2017, wherein the petitioner offered explanation to each of the five discrepancies mentioned. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 06.06.2017 is passed, wherein on account of negative opinion, renewal of licence was refused. Against this, the petitioner filed an application for review. However, the same is also rejected on 24.07.2017. 6. From the documents on record, it appears that the show cause notice was issued under a specific provision for cancelling the licence. It was for the authorities to proceed ahead with the show cause notice and after considering the explanation given, to take decision either to cancel the stamp vendor licence or to drop the show cause notice. Instead, the authorities have taken a decision of not renewing the licence relying upon the very same grounds, but not offering any show cause against refusal to renew. The negative opinion referred in the order does not appear to have been supplied to the petitioner. The negative opinion by the issued by the authority is also not available on record. Instead, the authorities have taken a decision of not renewing the licence relying upon the very same grounds, but not offering any show cause against refusal to renew. The negative opinion referred in the order does not appear to have been supplied to the petitioner. The negative opinion by the issued by the authority is also not available on record. Moreover, nothing is on record to suggest that on account of the discrepancies mentioned against the petitioner, the petitioner has received any monetary benefit by abusing the licence conditions. 7. In absence of any reasons being recorded in the impugned communication dated 06.06.2017, more particularly not referring to the explanation given by the petitioner to the show cause notice and not even referring to the show cause notice, the respondent has committed an error in refusing the licence. 8. In view of the aforesaid, communication dated 06.06.2017 is set aside. The case is remanded back to the Resident Additional Collector, Porbandar for decision afresh on the application of the petitioner dated 16.03.2016. The exercise to be conducted and to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of order of this Court. The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.