BIBHUTI KUMAR SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the Petitioners have challenged the Office Order No. 137 dated 6.11.2008 passed by the. Learned Additional District Magistrate granting licence in favour of Opposite Party No. 4 as Stamp Vendor under the Orissa Supply and Sale of Stamps and Stamped Papers Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') to sell General Stamps at Raghunathpur Tahasil Office violating Rule -17, Sub -rule (1) and Rule -4 (C and E) of Chapter -Ill of the Rules.

(2.) THE Petitioners are the existing Stamp Vendors who were received their licence since 2004 from the Additional District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur to sell Stamps at the Tahasil Office, Raghunathpur and the said licence were for a period of five years which will end by 31st of December, 2009. They pleaded that the Raghunathpur Tahasil was newly created and due to inadequate number of works the Petitioners were unable to sell Stamps for their moderate income. They also stated that the total sale of Stamps during the period was very low. The maximum sale was Rs. 164.80 and minimum was Rs. 35.00. They further pleaded that Opposite Party No. 4 is a fraudulent person and F.I.R. was lodged for his fraudulent act but the police did not take any action. However, the Tahasildar, Raghunathpur ratified the said fraud of Opposite Party No. 4 and appointed him as a Stamp Vendor on production of the Character Certificate, Solvency Certificate and Resident/Nativity Certificate obtained from the Tahasildar, Jagatsinghpur though the Tahasildar, Jagatsinghpur was not authorized to grant those certificates because the residence of Opposite Party No. 4, i.e., Dharadharpur, comes under the jurisdiction of the Tahasildar, Raghunathpur. As the Tahasildar, Raghunathpur did not agree to grant such certificates due to his fraudulent activities, Opposite Party No. 4 managed to obtain those certificates from the Tahasildar, Jagatsinghpur, The Solvency Certificate submitted by him was granted in favour of one Krushna Rout, the father of Opposite Party No. 4. The entire property of said Krushna Rout was not belonging to Opposite Party No. 4 as said Krushna Rout has his legal heirs.

(3.) OPPOSITE Party Nos. 2 and 3 filed their counter traversing the allegations made by the Petitioners and stating that the Petitioners were granted licence as Stamp Vendors for the Office of the Additional Tahasildar, Raghunathpur in the year 2004. As they were not sitting regularly for vending Stamps, the people coming to the Office of the Additional Tahasildar, Raghunathpur were facing immense difficulties to obtain different certificates and for different works of the Tahasil. Therefore, looking into the need of the local people, the Tahasildar, Raghunathpur recommended the application of Opposite Party No. 4 to the Additional District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur -Opposite Party No. 2 to grant licence as Stamp Vendor in Raghunathpur Tahasil Office for vending Stamps. The Petitioners are economically sound people having other business and good income source. They only tried to mislead this Court about the character and conduct of Opposite Party No. 4 for their own interest. However, Opposite Party No. 4 obtained those certificates during the period when the Additional Tahasildar, Raghunathpur was under maternity leave. Those certificates were issued by the Tahasildar of Jagatsinghpur Tahasil which is the parent Tahasil of Raghunathpur in absence of the Additional Tahasildar, Raghunathpur. The father of Opposite Party No. 4 during his lifetime obtained the Solvency Certificate for the Stamp Vendor licence for his son. The valuation was given as per the bench mark valuation obtained from the Sub -Registrar Office, Raghunathper. Those certificates were attested by the then A.B.D.O., Raghunathpur during the absence of the B.D.O. Therefore, Opposite Party No. 4 has not done any fraudulent act and there is no illegality or irregularity in granting licence in his favour. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the writ application.