High CourtsSingle Bench

K. Srinivasan vs The District Registrar, Registration Department

Madras High Court · Decided on 1 August 2011 · Citation: (2011) 08 MAD CK 0117

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vinod K. Sharma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Tamil Nadu Stamp Rules — Rule 23(3)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (MD) No. 2209 of 2006 and W.P. (MP) (MD) No. 2427 of 2006
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 390 words

Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of

Certiorari, to quash the impugned order issued by the Respondent in No. 7945/04/81, dated 02.08.2004, suspending the Stamp Vendor licence

of the Petitioner.

2.

The Petitioner was granted licence to vend judicial, non-judicial and court fee stamps on 14.12.1992. The licence was issued under Rule 23(III)

of the Tamil Nadu Stamp Rules. Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp Rules permits the authorities to revoke the licence issued to a Stamp Vendor at

any time for breach of terms or disobedience of the rules.

3.

On the allegation that the Petitioner was not maintaining regular register to record the sales of stamps, and Pending enquiry, the Respondent

suspended the licence of the Petitioner.

4.

The only ground on which the impugned order is challenged is that there is No. provision under the rules to suspend the licence as the

jurisdiction with the Respondent is only to revoke the licence, on commission a breach of terms of licence.

5.

It is also the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the general principle, that an authority competent to terminate/cancel can

also suspend, will not apply in case of a Stamp Vendor,as by suspending the licence, the business of the Petitioner comes to a standstill, and give

an arbitrary power to the Respondent not to conclude the enquiry or pass final orders thus defeat the right of the Petitioner under the licence. There

is force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. In absence of power to suspend, the Respondent could only revoke the licence,

after recording a finding of violation of terms for the licence, but it is not open to suspend the licence, and keep it suspended for indefinite period, in

this case it is under suspension for more than five years.

6.

For the reasons stated, the Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order is set side.

7.

Directions are issued to the Respondent to take final decision on the enquiry regarding revocation of licence of the Petitioner, expeditiously, and

in any case, not later than one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

8.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No. costs.