MAYANK RAMAKANT PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition the petitioner has challenged the order of respondent no. 2 dated 7/2/2006, whereby the concerned officer has exercised power under rule 11 of the Gujarat Stamps Supply & Sales Rules, 1987 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'] and has cancelled non -judicial stamp licences of the petitioner with effect from 8/2/2006. It appears from the impugned order that on 16/7/2005 the supervisors of Stamp Office carried out surprise checking at the site of the stamp vending by the petitioner and upon checking the register it was found that the petitioner had sold to Mr. Y A Rangwala, advocate practicing in City Civil Court, 88 stamp papers of the value of Rs.20/ - each during the period between May 2005 and June 2005. It is alleged that since the petitioner had not indicated the details for whom the stamps were purchased by Mr. Rangwala in the sale register, he had committed breach of rule 14(1) of the Rules and, therefore, respondent no. 2 issued show cause notice dated 15/12/2005 to the petitioner alleging breach of rule 14 (1) and (2). In response to the same, the petitioner submitted his written reply. Ultimately respondent no. 2 came to the conclusion that Mr. Rangwala did not utilized these stamp papers for his own purpose, but utilized them for his clients. He, therefore, held that since the petitioner had sold stamp papers, 88 in number, and he had even not noted the details in the sale register for whom they were purchased, he had committed breach of rule 14(1) of the Rules. On the basis of the same, respondent no. 2 passed the ultimate order holding that it was necessary in public interest to cancel the licences of the petitioner with immediate effect and accordingly they were cancelled with effect from 8/2/2006.

(2.) MR . Dave, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the facts would reveal that no such breach was committed by the petitioner. He has further submitted that even if such breach is found to have been committed by the petitioner, the maximum punishment that can be imposed upon him is fine to the extent of Rs.500/ - and nothing beyond that. He has drawn my attention to the relevant provisions of the Rules. Rule 14(1) reads as under : -

(3.) THE aforesaid provision would show that the stamp vendor has to write 'the name and residence of the purchaser i.e., the person for whom the stamp is bought'. In the instant case, there are 88 such stamp papers which have been sold by the petitioner to one person, namely Mr. Rangwala, advocate, within a span of one month. It is found by respondent no. 2 that these stamp papers have not been utilized by Mr. Rangwala for his own purpose, but they have been utilized for his clients. Obviously, therefore, Mr. Rangwala bought the stamp papers on behalf of his clients, details of whom were not noted in register. However, even if that fact is not recorded in the register and that is causing the breach of rule 14(1), the maximum punishment that can be imposed upon the petitioner by the concerned authority will be in accordance with rule 62 which reads as under : -