Judgment:
Aftab Alam, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed at the instance of the Bihar Stamp Vendors Association and its Secretary who are petitioners 1 and 2 respectively. They seek to challenge the fresh 'appointments' of stamp vendors in the districts of Samastipur, Khagaria and Banka. It may be noted at the out set that though in the writ petition the expression mostly used is 'appointment of stamp vendors', it is not a case of appointment in any Government employment but issuance of licence for vending judicial and non-judicial stamps etc. at certain commissions. The petitioners have impleaded the authorities issuing the licenses and the persons in whose favour fresh licences have been issued for vending stamps. Respondents No. 8 is the Collector, Samastipur and respondents 6, 7 and 8 are the persons who have been granted fresh licences in the district of Samastipur ; respondent No. 4 is the Collector, Khagaria and respondent No. 9 is the person who has been given a fresh stamp vending licence in that district ; similarly respondent No. 5 is the Collector, Banka and respondents 10, 11 and 12 are the persons who got fresh stamp vending licences there.
2. The petitioners challenge the issuance of the new licences on the ground that those were issued without following the guidelines laid down by the Board of Revenue and the directions issued by the High Court in that regard,
3. It appears that the Association had earlier come to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6171/1992 seeking a direction to the authorities restraining them from issuing any additional stamp vending licences. In that case the authorities had submitted before the Court that fresh licences would be issued only in accordance with the departmental instructions. In view of the stand taken by the authorities, this Court had disposed of that writ petition by order dated 30-4-1993 (Annexure 2) with the following observations:
In that view of the matter, we dispose of this application with the observation that in future all appointment of stamp yondors should be made in accordance with directions issued from time to time by the Board of Revenue. They should invite applications, prepare panel of the stamp vendor and thereafter will make appointment of stamp vendor from the said panel. No appointment should be made in arbitrary manner.
4. In this regard Dr. Sadanand Jha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners also relies upon a circular letter dated 11-5-1993 issued by the Secretary, Revenue Board, Bihar, Patna, and addressed to all the Dist. Magistrates (Annexure-C to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 4). In this circular letter, it was provided that the question of issuing additional stamp vending licences should be considered only after the minimum average income of the existing licencees on the basis of the total sale of the stamps amounted to Rs. 1000/- monthly and complaints were received from the public regarding availability/distribution of the stamps. The letter further provided that in such a case the applications should be invited from the desirous candidates and after carefully examining their antecedents a merit based panel should be prepared. The life of the panel would be one year and fresh licence would be issued on the basis of that panel. Normally not more than three licences should be issued in one year.
5. Dr. Jha, learned Counsel submitted that the action at the respondent authorities in issuing additional licences was bad and unsustainable as those licences were issued without making any advertisement and without computing the average minimum income of the existing licencees. It was further submitted that in Banka 35 licences were were granted in one year which were far in excess of the normal number as provided in the aforesaid circular letter.
6. Before examining the submissions made by Dr. Jha, it should be borne in mind that the main object of granting a stamp vending licence is not as much to provide employment to an individual as to ensure that judicial/non-judicial stamps are available to the member of the public who may need them without much difficulty or inconvenience. The provision that the minimum average income of stamp vendors should not go below Rs. 1000/- per month is also intended to ensure financial viability and security for the licencees engageed in the business of sale of stamps failing which they would withdraw from the business and finally it would be the general public which would suffer inconvenience in obtaining stamps. It should also be borne in mind that stamp vendors are not appointed to any civil posts but they are only granted licences for vending stamps. Hence the sufficiency and validity of advertisement for the grant of licence may not be judged on the same basis as the case of appointment to a civil post. In this regard, it may also be noted that any grievance regarding absence or insufficiency of advertisement has not been raised by any prospective candidate who could not apply or get the licence for want of any proper advertisement. This plea is being raised by the Association of the existing licencees who do not wish any additional members among their ranks so as to share the income from the commission on the sale of the stamps. Had this plea been raised on behalf of a prospective candidate, this Court might have examined the question of absence/sufficiency of advertisement but in this case I am not inclined to consider the plea seriously or to attach much weight to it at the issuance of advertisement does not in any way affect of even concern the petitioners.
7. As regards the plea that the question of issuing fresh licences could be considered only after the minimum average income of the existing licencees amounted to Rs. 1000/- per month, it may be noted that there is no averment-in the writ petition, much less any computing, to show that on account of the additional licences granted in three districts in question for average monthly income of the existing licencees in those districts had gone below Rs. 1000/- per months and hence I am not inclined to interfere in this matter on this plea either.
After these general observations, I would like to briefly examine, the factual position in the three districts. Mr. Maitin appearing on behalf or respondents 3, 4 and 5 produced before me the entire relevant file form the Samastipur district. From the records, it appears that for the Rosera Subdivision of the district, a panel of 16 persons was prepared in 1993 out of which four were granted the licences ; at Samastipur, from a panel of 25 names, one person was granted licence in the year, 1993 ; again in 1994, from a panel of 39 persons, three were granted licences and in Patori Sub-division only one person out of panel of 70 was granted licences in the year, 1994. Mr. Maitin stated that the panels were prepared on the basis of advertisements displayed on the Notice Boards of the relevant offices.
8. As regards Khagaria, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4. In this affidavit details have been given regarding the total sale proceeds of stamps at Khagaria and the insufficiency of the stamp vendors on the basis. It is further stated that following the directions contained in the Board's circular letter dated 11-5-1993 a selection Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of the Collector which examined all the applications received in the office from time to time and prepared a panel. Out of that panel only three persons were granted the stamps vending licence after proper verification of their character and antecedents. In this counter affidavit it is stated that issuance of any fresh advertisement was not found necessary as persons desirous of the licence had been filing their applications in the office throughout the year and thus, quite a large number of applications were already pending.
9. Dr. Jha, learned Counsel submitted that this statement in the counter affidavit clearly indicated that the Collector not only acted in violation of the guideline provided in the Board's circular letter but also in derogation of this Court's directions. In this regard, he further submitted that the action of the Collector, Banka amounted to contempt of Court. I am unable to agree. I am satisfied that there was no deliberate disobedience of this Court's order and hence there is no question of any contempt. The Collector would have bene well advised to follow the guidelines given in the Board's circular letter and the directions of this Court both in letter and spirit but in the facts and circumstances of this case his failure to do so does not amount to any material irregularity such as to invite an interference by this Court in the grant of additional stamp vending licences.
10. Coming now to Banka, it is indeed true that 35 licences were issued there but the issuance of this seemingly large number of licences has to be viewed in the background that no fresh licences were issued there since 1978. It is further stated on behalf of the concerned respondents that in 1978 there were 12 stamp vendors and the gross sale proceeds of stamps amounted to Rs. 2 lacs. After the issuance of the 35 additional licences the sale proceeds have increased to more than Rs. 6 lacs. Thus, there is three fold increase in the sale proceeds.
11. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that there was no infirmity in the issuance of the additional stamp vending licences and the matter does not warrant any interference by this Court. In the result, I find no merit in this application and it is accordingly dismissed.