UGRA NARAYAN JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in memo No. 3/Sa dated 19.12.2003 whereby stamp vendor license of the petitioner has been cancelled.

(2.) THE petitioner was granted stamp vendor license by the Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka and on the strength of the said license the petitioner was selling stamps since 1977. On 26.6.2003 one of the Advocates of the Civil Court, Godda made a complaint to the Advocates ' Association alleging that the petitioner was demanding Rs. 7/ - for a stamp of the value of Rs. 5/ -. It was also alleged that the petitioner insulted the said Advocate. Accordingly the Secretary of the Advocates ' Association made an application to the District Judge, Godda stating about the conduct of the petitioner and for taking appropriate action against him. The District Judge, thereafter, wrote a letter dated 26.6.2003 requesting the Deputy Commissioner to look into the matter and consider the desirability of cancellation of the license of the petitioner. On the ground of the aforesaid charge the license of the petitioner was suspended by the Deputy Commissioner and the petitioner was directed to file show cause as to why his license be not cancelled. The petitioner denied the allegation by filing show cause and stated that there has never been any complaint against him. After considering the show cause the Deputy Commissioner cancelled the license of the petitioner,

(3.) MR . P.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as, according to the petitioner, no show cause notice was issued on the basis of the report submitted by the Executive Officer after surprise inspection and, therefore, the license of the petitioner could not have been cancelled on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of the license. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order being non -speaking order, cannot be sustained in law.