Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 8 (JHR)

Akshay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2023-01-02

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2023
ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo no. 746 dated 09.04.2018 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro (the respondent no. 2) whereby Non-Judicial Stamps License No. 02 of 1972-73 and Court-Fees Stamps License No. 11 of 1999-2000 issued in favour of the petitioner have been cancelled with immediate effect. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was issued License No. 02 of 1972-73 by the respondent no. 2 on 13.04.1972 for vending of general stamps, which was renewed by the cometent authority from time-to-time. Subsequently, License No. 11 of 1999-2000 was also issued to the petitioner by the respondent no. 2 on 28.03.2000 to sell court-fee stamps. On 07.03.2018, a surprise inspection was made at the stalls of different stamp vendors situated within the premises of Sub-Divisional Office/Office of District Sub-Registrar, Chas, Bokaro by two teams constituted in terms with direction of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas, Bokaro. In the said inspection, different articles including the boxes of stamp vendors were seized and an F.I.R. being Pindrajora P.S. Case No. 26 of 2018 was lodged against eight stamp vendors including the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, was granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 25.10.2018 passed in A.B.A. No. 4890 of 2018. In the meantime, show cause notice as contained in memo no. 577 dated 10.03.2018 was issued to the petitioner by the respondent no. 2 suspending his License No. 02 of 1972-73 and calling upon him to show cause as to why the said license be not cancelled on the ground that during the said surprise inspection, he had sold a non-judicial stamp of Rs.50/- at the double rate i.e., Rs.100/- to the deputed magistrate- Prakash Pandey. Subsequently, a letter as contained in memo no. 595 dated 14.03.2018 was issued to the petitioner under the signature of the Stamp Deputy Collector, Bokaro directing him to submit the Stock Register and Sale Register before the said authority. On 22.03.2018, the petitioner replied the said show cause notice dated 10.03.2018 stating that no such sale of stamp was made by him on 07.03.2018 as alleged as well as that he had never sold any stamp at the higher rate. On 22.03.2018, the petitioner replied the said show cause notice dated 10.03.2018 stating that no such sale of stamp was made by him on 07.03.2018 as alleged as well as that he had never sold any stamp at the higher rate. The petitioner also stated inter alia that though he had been engaged in selling stamps since 1972-73, there was no such complaint against him till the said surprise inspection. 3. It is further submitted that pursuant to letter dated 14.03.2018 issued under the signature of the Stamp Deputy Collector, Bokaro, the petitioner, vide letter dated 23.03.2018, informed the said authority that the Stock Register and Sale Register, which were put in the boxes, were seized in connection with the said criminal case and were kept in Pindrajora Police Station, hence he would not be in a position to submit the same. Thereafter, vide impugned order as contained in memo no. 746 dated 09.04.2018, the respondent no. 2 cancelled the Non-Judicial Stamps License No. 02 of 1972-73 and Court-Fees Stamps License No. 11 of 1999-2000 issued in favour of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the impugned order dated 09.04.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2 is highly arbitrary and illegal as no reason whatsoever has been assigned by the said respondent while rejecting his show cause reply and passing an order of cancellation of the said licenses. The criminal case instituted against the petitioner and other stamp vendors is still pending. If at all the respondent no. 2 had intended to proceed for cancellation of the concerned licenses of the petitioner, the said authority was required to assign sufficient and valid reason on the basis of which the impugned order was passed. 5. On the contrary, Mr. P.C. Sinha, learned A.C. to G.A.-III appearing on behalf of the respondents, while referring to counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, submits that the respondent no. 2 after going through the explanation submitted by the petitioner, did not find any merit in the same and accordingly he passed the impugned order dated 09.04.2018 cancelling the petitioner’s licenses. P.C. Sinha, learned A.C. to G.A.-III appearing on behalf of the respondents, while referring to counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, submits that the respondent no. 2 after going through the explanation submitted by the petitioner, did not find any merit in the same and accordingly he passed the impugned order dated 09.04.2018 cancelling the petitioner’s licenses. During the surprise inspection dated 07.03.2018, the petitioner was found violating the relevant provisions of Bihar Stamp Rules, 1954 as well as the instructions issued thereunder by the Board of Revenue and the conditions mentioned in the licenses issued under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Court-Fees Act, 1870 and therefore the respondent no. 2 having the power and jurisdiction to cancel the stamp licenses has passed the impugned order dated 09.04.2018. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. The specific submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent no. 2 has passed the impugned order dated 09.04.2018 cancelling Non-Judicial Stamps License No. 02 of 1972-73 and Court-Fees Stamps License No. 11 of 1999-2000 issued in favour of the petitioner with a preconceived notion without discussing any material available on record. 8. This Court has perused the impugned order dated 09.04.2018 which runs in two paragraphs and on perusal of the same, it appears that the first paragraph discusses the facts with respect to making surprise inspection, lodging of the F.I.R., suspension of the said licenses and issuance of show cause notice to the petitioner. In the second paragraph of the said order, it has merely been stated that on the basis of available evidences and on due consideration of the same, the explanation submitted by the petitioner is liable to rejected and accordingly the said licenses have been cancelled. 9. It is a trite law that an administrative authority while taking any decision by which a person is put to adversity, is required to properly explain the material on the basis of which the said decision is taken. The respondent no. 2 in the impugned order has though mentioned that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is liable to be rejected on the basis of available evidences on record, yet, he has not discussed as to what were those evidences on the basis of which he formed such an opinion. 10. The respondent no. 2 in the impugned order has though mentioned that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is liable to be rejected on the basis of available evidences on record, yet, he has not discussed as to what were those evidences on the basis of which he formed such an opinion. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asha Sharma vs. Chandigarh Administration and Others reported in (2011) 10 SCC 86 , has held as under:- “14. Action by the State, whether administrative or executive, has to be fair and in consonance with the statutory provisions and rules. Even if no rules are in force to govern executive action still such action, especially if it could potentially affect the rights of the parties, should be just, fair and transparent. Arbitrariness in State action, even where the rules vest discretion in an authority, has to be impermissible. The exercise of discretion, in line with principles of fairness and good governance, is an implied obligation upon the authorities, when vested with the powers to pass orders of determinative nature. The standard of fairness is also dependent upon certainty in State action, that is, the class of persons, subject to regulation by the Allotment Rules, must be able to reasonably anticipate the order for the action that the State is likely to take in a given situation. Arbitrariness and discrimination have inbuilt elements of uncertainty as the decisions of the State would then differ from person to person and from situation to situation, even if the determinative factors of the situations in question were identical. This uncertainty must be avoided.” 11. In the case of NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association Vs. NOIDA & Others reported in (2011) 6 SCC 508 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “39. State actions are required to be non-arbitrary and justified on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. Action of the State or its instrumentality must be in conformity with some principle which meets the test of reason and relevance. Functioning of a “democratic form of Government demands equality and absence of arbitrariness and discrimination”. The rule of law prohibits arbitrary action and commands the authority concerned to act in accordance with law. Every action of the State or its instrumentalities should neither be suggestive of discrimination, nor even apparently give an impression of bias, favouritism and nepotism. Functioning of a “democratic form of Government demands equality and absence of arbitrariness and discrimination”. The rule of law prohibits arbitrary action and commands the authority concerned to act in accordance with law. Every action of the State or its instrumentalities should neither be suggestive of discrimination, nor even apparently give an impression of bias, favouritism and nepotism. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule, it is unpredictable and such a decision is antithesis to the decision taken in accordance with the rule of law.” 12. In the case of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India reported in (1990) 4 SCC 594 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “36. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge.” 13. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge.” 13. Thus, an order of an administrative authority adversely affecting the right and interest of any party is required to be supported by sound decision making process which includes the consideration of the explanation submitted by the affected party in reply to the show cause notice. Such decision would also facilitate the appellate and revisional authority to exercise their jurisdiction. It is not required that the reasons assigned in the order of the concerned authority should always be elaborate, rather it should be clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The extent and nature of the reasons depend on particular facts and circumstances. When an administrative authority is vested with the power to pass any order which is of determinative nature, then it is the duty of such authority to exercise its discretionary power in line with the principles of fairness and good governance and such action should neither be suggestive of discrimination nor be apparently giving an impression of biasness. 14. It is important to note that the petitioner while submitting his explanation dated 22.03.2018 had clearly denied that he made any such sale of stamp on 07.03.2018 as alleged and that he had never sold the stamp on a higher rate. The petitioner had also submitted show cause reply on 23.08.2018 stating that he was not in a position to submit the same as the box in which the stock register and sale register were kept by him was already seized and kept in Pindrajora Police Station. Under the said circumstance, the respondent no. 2 was duty bound to discuss the materials available before him on the basis of which he formed the opinion to reject the petitioner’s explanation and to cancel the aforesaid licenses. 15. In considered view of this Court, the impugned order as contained in memo no. 746 dated 09.04.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2 fails to meet the requirement of the principles of fairness and thus, the same cannot be sustained in law. 15. In considered view of this Court, the impugned order as contained in memo no. 746 dated 09.04.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2 fails to meet the requirement of the principles of fairness and thus, the same cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the impugned order dated 09.04.2018 is quashed and set aside. 16. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.