INDUMATIBEN INDRAVADAN PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has invoked Articles 14, 19 and 226 of the Constitution with a prayer to set aside order dated 22. 12. 2005 of the Collector and Additional Superintendent of Stamps whereby, in exercise of the powers under Rule 11 of the Gujarat Stamps Supply and Sales Rules, 1987, (for short "the Rules"), licence of the petitioner was cancelled in public interest. That order followed show cause notice dated 21. 10. 2005 wherein 31 serious defaults on the part of the petitioner were mentioned as "innumerable errors and anomalies" amounting to violation of Rules 14 (1) (2) (3), 16 and 21 of the Rules. On that basis, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why her licence should not be cancelled for violation of the Rules and the conditions subject to which the licence was issued to the petitioner under the aforesaid Rules.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the licence for selling stamps was issued to her since the year 1988 and, after being renewed from time to time, it was lastly renewed for the period from 1. 4. 2005 to 31. 3. 2006. According to the petition, the mistakes alleged to have been committed by the petitioner were of a very minor nature and could at the most amount to negligence since the petitioner had otherwise worked with utmost honesty. It is contended that the maximum penalty for violation of Rule 14 was prescribed in Rule 62 of the aforesaid Rules. It is submitted that there might have been occasions wherein entries might have been overlooked by the petitioner or, on some occasions, due to negligence, she might have forgotten to put the date on the stamp paper. However, if the stamp papers sold by her were verified with the sale register, it would be amply clear that no mistake alleged in the show cause notice was deliberately committed by her to either misuse the stamp papers or to misappropriate them.

(3.) IT was vehemently argued by learned counsel Ms. Sonal Shah, appearing with learned senior advocate Mr. Yatin Oza, that the provisions of Rule 62 only provided for maximum fine of Rs. 500/- for breach of Rule 14 and, in absence of any allegation of serious irregularity or misappropriation, the impugned order ought not to have been passed, even as in several other cases cited at the bar, the authorities had taken a lenient view under similar circumstances. Learned counsel also submitted written submissions reiterating the contentions raised in the petition and in the oral arguments. As for the allegation of not obtaining signature of purchasers on the stamp paper, it is stated in the written submission that such omission might have occurred due to heavy rush of purchasers, who were mostly advocates, and such omission ought not to have been treated as an intentional irregularity and that every alleged mistake committed by the petitioner was always brought to the notice of the authorities in time by the petitioner. Learned counsel relied upon orders dated 5. 5. 2006 in SCA No. 15660 of 2005, 22. 8. 2006 in LPA No. 1024 of 2006 and 29. 3. 2007 in SCA No. 8282 of 2006 of this court wherein, while allowing the petitions and setting aside the impugned orders of cancellation of licence, the court directed the respondent authorities to revive the licence and renew it within a stipulated period. It was submitted that the petitioner was the sole bread-earner as her husband and three children had all expired within a period of nearly one year and that she had no other means of livelihood and, looking to her blotless record, the impugned order was required to be quashed.