Anoop Kumar Jain vs State and Another

B.S. Verma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

By means of this petition, the Petitioner has sought following reliefs:

a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.06.2004 contained annexure No. 2 passed by Respondent No. 2.

aa. Issue a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 12.08.2005 (annexure No. 9) passed by the Respondent No. 2.

b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the Respondent No. 2 to consider the renewal/continuation of stamp vendor license of Petitioner in accordance with law.

c) Issue any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of the Petitioner.

d) Cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the Petitioner.

Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that a license for sale of stamps was issued in favour of Petitioner in the year 1996 by Respondent No. 2. Initially the license was granted for the period of 03.11.1996 to 31.03.1997 and it was renewed from time to time and lastly by order dated 09.04.2002, the license was renewed upto 31.03.2005. Copy of the license of the Petitioner, issued by Respondent No. 2 is annexed as annexure-1 to the writ petition.

Vide impugned order dated 26.06.2004, Respondent No. 2-Additional District Magistrate/Additional Collector (Finance) without giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, cancelled the license for sale of stamps, which was issued in favour of the Petitioner. It is further stated in the writ petition that neither any show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner nor enquiry was conducted against him. The Petitioner moved an application dated 28.06.2004 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) for recalling the order dated 26.06.2004, before Additional District Magistrate, which was rejected on 12.08.2005.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently urged that license for sale of stamps was rejected on the ground that some enquiry initiated against the real brother of the Petitioner-Pankaj Jain, Stamp vendor, is pending and the matter is being investigated. On this sole ground that Pankaj Jain is brother of Petitioner-Anoop Kumar Jain, license for sale of stamps, issued in favour of Petitioner was cancelled by Respondent No. 2.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2, it is stated that license of the Petitioner was cancelled on the basis of enquiry pending against the brother of Petitioner in the interest of the government and public.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated that during the pendency of this writ petition, Respondent No. 2 on 19.02.2009, restored and renewed the license of the brother of the Petitioner (Pankaj Jain) up till 31.03.2011. Therefore, the Petitioner is also entitled for renewal of license. The Court had granted time to the Standing Counsel for Respondents to seek instructions in this regard.

Learned Brief Holder for the State has not denied this fact that the license of the Petitioner's brother has been restored and renewed till 31.03.2011 by Respondent No. 2 on 19.02.2009. Photocopy of the document, supplied by learned Counsel for the Petitioner showing renewal of the license of the Petitioner's brother on 19.02.2009, be kept in record.

Since the license of the Petitioner was cancelled by Respondent No. 2 on the sole ground that enquiry initiated against the Petitioner's real brother is lying pending but later on 19.02.2009, has renewed the license of the Petitioner's brother, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

The writ petition is allowed. The Respondent No. 2 is directed to renew the license of the Petitioner on payment of renewal fees within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.