Anil Kumar Sinha vs The State of Bihar and Others

Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the State.

This application is directed against the order dated 12.9.1991, as contained Annexure-3, cancelling the Stamp Vender Licence of the Petitioner.

The sole ground urged on behalf the Petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunities to him of filing show cause. This aspect has not been controverted by the Respondent in the counter affidavit filed today. It has been stated that a criminal case has been instituted against the Petitioner. learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted in the connection that the criminal case, referred to in the counter affidavit, has been institution against a different person bearing the same name. learned Counsel, however, conceded that this stand is being taken only on the ground that the parentage of the accused has not been mentioned in the F. I. R. learned Counsel for the State on the other hand, pointed out on the basis of the averment made in the counter affidavit that the accused is criminal case is non-else than the Petitioner himself.

It is not necessary to go into this controversy for the purpose of disposal of this writ application. In view of the unconverted position that the impugned order has been passed without giving any (sic) for showing cause to the Petitioner, It impugned order has to be quashed on that ground alone. In the case of Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and Another, the Supreme Court observed while dealing with the case of black listing of contractor that the orders of that nature affects the livelihood of the person and, therefore, the minimum that should be done is to provide an opportunity of hearts to the person concerned. The instant case hears similarity with the case aforesaid inasmuch as the cancellation of the Vendor''s licence will also visit the Petitioner with evil consequences touching upon his livelihood. Accordingly, we have no option but to quash the impugned order (Annexure-3).

In the result, this application is alloyed and the impugned order dated 12.9.1991 (Annexure-3) is quashed. The Collector, Katihar, Respondent no 2 will further have the (sic) to act afresh in the matter in accordance with law.

It was pointed out that the Collector has passed a consequential order, which is contained in Memo No. 980 dated 16.9.1991 Annexure-4) by which consequentially the Petitioner was directed to deposit the stamps in the Treasury. Since the order of cancellation of the licence has been quashed, it would logically follow that if the Petitioner has deposited the stamp pursuant to the aforesaid order, the same shall have to be refunded to him. This, however, will be subject to any final order, which the Collector may pass.

This application is thus, disposed of.