Mohinder Singh vs Collector, Union Territory

A.L. Bahri, J.—Mohinder Singh petitioner was granted Stamp Vendor''s licence. A complaint was received by the respondent-Collector, Union Territory, Chandigarli that the petitioner had issued blank stamp papers and his licence should be cancelled. The licence was suspended vide order dated 27th November, 1992 (Annexure P-1). This also was challenged by the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 373 of 1993, which was dismissed on January 19, 1993, with permission to file fresh one to challenge ordur of revocation of the licence, which had been passed by the respondent. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, challenging order of revocation dated January 8. 1993 (Annexure P-5) on the grounds, inter alia, that no enquiry was held, after reply to the show cause notice was given, denying the allegations. It was asserted that the allegation against the petitioner was incorrect. The entire stock with him may be checked. Since no enquiry was held, the order of revocation is (sic)ble to be quashed.

On notice of motion having been issued, written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent.

Learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that the petitioner should have challenged the order of revocation in the previous writ petition and the fresh petition on the same cause of action is not maintainable. There is no force in this contention. As already staled above, the previous writ petition was admittedly withdrawn with liberty to file fresh one to challenge order of revocation. Such a permission was granted by the Court. Had such an objeetion been raised earlier, the previous writ petition could have been amended.

The blank stamp papers, alleged to have been sold by the petitioner, have been produced in Court. We have seen the same and returned. From such blank stamp papers, it cannot be said that they were issued by the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent point- ed out that the statements of Chander Mukhi Sharma -- complainant and Suresh Kumar were recorded, who deposed that such papers were issued by the petitioner. It is now conceded that when the statements of the two aforesaid persons were recorded, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine them. When a licence was required to be cancelled, it was necessary to afford an opportunity to the licensee to cross-examine the witnesses, whose statements were sought to be used against him. Reliance is placed on Rule 31 of the Punjab Stamp Rules, 1934, which empowers the Collector for revocation of the licences. However, principles of natural justice require that the petitioner should have been associated with the enquiry proceedings, if ultimately the licence granted to him was to be revoked. Simply issuing him show cause notice and getting reply was not enough in the present case. The petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity to meet out the case sought to be brought out against him. The order of revocation of his licence (Annex, P-5) cannot be sustained and the same is quashed. The respondent would return the necessary register etc. to the petitioner, which were taken from his possession.

Writ petition stands disposed of, as above.

Order accordingly.