Ugra Narayan Jaiswal Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....(1) of section 173 is necessary. [new india assurance co. ltd. v md. makubur rahman, 1993 (2) glr 430 and new india assurance co. ltd. v smt rita devi, 1997(2) glt 406, approved. new india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. - in the said letter the district judge stated the conduct of the petitioner is not good towards the lawyers of the bar. in the letter issued by the general section of the godda collector it has been clearly mentioned that the show cause of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and on the ground of selling stamps by demanding higher price and also on other grounds, the license has been cancelled......on the basis of the said complaint made by the bar association and the letter sent by the district judge, godda, issued show cause notice to the petitioner and after considering his show cause, cancelled the license of the petitioner. in the letter issued by the general section of the godda collector it has been clearly mentioned that the show cause of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and on the ground of selling stamps by demanding higher price and also on other grounds, the license has been cancelled.6. taking into consideration the entire facts of the case i am of the opinion that the impugned order need not interference particularly when principles of natural justice has been followed by the deputy commissioner by giving the petitioner a show cause notice and considering the same.7. for the aforesaid reasons, i am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. this writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Judgment:

ORDER

M.Y. Eqbal, J.

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. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating, inter alia, that the license of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of the license and also illegal sale of stamps by the petitioner during the suspension period. It is contended that a surprise inspection was conducted in the shop of the petitioner on 29.11.2003 and he was found in possession of stamps of different denominations while his license was in the state of suspension. It was also found that the petitioner was selling stamps illegally.

4. 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.

5. As noticed above, a complaint was made by the Bar Association to the District Judge, Godda against the petitioner. The District Judge, Godda, by letter dated 26.6.2003 informed the Deputy Commissioner, Godda about the conduct of the petitioner. A copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In the said letter the District Judge stated the conduct of the petitioner is not good towards the lawyers of the Bar. The District Judge further stated that he has been receiving persistent complaints from the lawyers and the public that the petitioner, used to sell stamps of the value of Rs. 1 /- for Rs. 5/-. It is further stated in the said letter that the Judge incharge, Civil Court, Godda called the petitioner in his chamber and told him not to sell stamps in excess of the price of its value but the petitioner did not abandon his habit to realizing more money by selling stamps from the litigants. The District Judge, therefore, opined that the petitioner has been contravening the terms and conditions of the license of Stamp Vendor granted to him. It appeals that the Deputy Commissioner, on the basis of the said complaint made by the Bar Association and the letter sent by the District Judge, Godda, issued show cause notice to the petitioner and after considering his show cause, cancelled the license of the petitioner. In the letter issued by the General Section of the Godda Collector it has been clearly mentioned that the show cause of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and on the ground of selling stamps by demanding higher price and also on other grounds, the license has been cancelled.

6. Taking into consideration the entire facts of the case I am of the opinion that the impugned order need not interference particularly when principles of natural justice has been followed by the Deputy Commissioner by giving the petitioner a show cause notice and considering the same.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.