S SETHURAMAN Vs. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE DINDIGUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a licenced stamp vendor for the sale of judicial, non-judicial and court fee stamps and such licence was issued under the Indian Stamp Act and the Stamp Rules. By an order, dated 19.01.2004, issued by the District Registrar, Dindigul, the petitioner was allowed to sell judicial, non-judicial and court fee stamps in the Court compound at Dindigul. THE petitioner is also having licence to sell postal stamps at 14, Saint Mary's Building, G.H.Road, Dindigul. Apart from selling both Judicial and non-judicial Court Fee stamps, the petitioner was also selling postal stamps in the court premises for reason best known to him. THE local Bar Association have made a complaint to the District Judge alleging that the petitioner is not authorised to sell postal stamps. On the said complainant, the District Judge (the respondent herein) directed the petitioner not to sell any stamps.

(2.) THE learned District Judge has acted on the representation made by the Bar Association. Even in his counter affidavit, he had stated that since the members of the Bar Association are consumers, they are entitled to make their grievance and therefore, the present impugned order has been passed. While passing the order, the learned Principal District Judge has not called for any explanation from the petitioner. Even then, the restraint order was applicable only to the postal stamps. Infact, the impugned order totally deprives the right of the petitioner to carry on his livelihood. THE power to sell stamps in the court premises has been authorised by the District Registrar under the said Indian Stamps Act & Rules. Since the impugned order completely restrains the petitioner's right to sell the stamp, it suffers from the non-application of mind.