V. PADMINI Vs. DISTRICT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order of Respondent in No. 234/E2/2014 dated 16.09.2014 and to quash the same and thereby forbearing the respondent from implementing the above said order.

(2.) THE petitioner is a licensed stamp vendor, having been granted a license dated 03.10.1986, under Rule 25(iii) of the Stamp Rules. By virtue of the license granted, the petitioner was entitled to vend stamp at 42, Senjai Pottal South, Karaikudi. Ever since the grant of license in the year 1986, the petitioner has been carrying on her activities strictly in accordance with the rules and there was no earlier complaint against her. A show cause notice was issued on 03.03.2014, based on the complaint given by one M. Subramanian dated 21.01.2014. The allegation was that the petitioner has been vending stamps from a place, which is not a licensed premises. It appears a discreet enquiry had been conducted, which has also been referred to in the show cause notice. The petitioner was asked as to why action should not be taken against her. The petitioner submitted her explanation stating that she is carrying on stamp vending business in a premises owned by her, which is 20 feet away from his residence. On receipt of the reply, the respondent did not offer any opportunity of personal hearing to come to the conclusion that the petitioner has been vending stamp in a different premises. That apart, there is another allegation made in the impugned order, stating that there are certain discrepancies in the registers. Consequently, the petitioner's stamp vending license was cancelled by order dated 16.09.2014, which is impugned in the Writ Petition.

(3.) THE core question would be as to whether the license could be cancelled on the alleged ground that the petitioner is vending stamp from a different premise other than the premises for which license was granted. The Show Cause Notice is based on the complaint given by one M. Subramanian. The copy of the complaint was not furnished to the petitioner. That apart, it appears some discreet enquiry was conducted and neither the finding of the said enquiry nor a document said to have been purchased, which made during the discreet enquiry, were made known to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted her reply clearly stating that the vending done by her is in a premises owned by her, which is 20 feet away from her residence. This specific explanation was wrongly understood by the respondent in such a manner that the petitioner herself accepted that the stamp vending is done in a different place. From a careful reading of the explanation given by the petitioner, it is seen that the petitioner has stated that she is vending in the licensed premises, which is 20 feet away from her house. It is her own building. In any event, there is no record to show that the vending of stamp has been done in a different locality or that the petitioner has been carrying on vending operation in more than one place. Therefore, the explanation given by the petitioner has not been properly considered. Even assuming that there was any such marginal violation, that cannot be a ground to cancel the license. Therefore, even assuming that there is minor violation, that cannot be a ground to cancel the petitioner's license and the punishment imposed is not commensurate to the allegation made in the show cause notice.