The Bombay High Court directed the  Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department to decide the representation of  the petitioner regarding allotting new Authorized Stamp Vendor Licenses in Mumbai City (especially in Fort area) for the convenience of the public or starting e-stamp facilities like National Capital Region, Delhi and other States.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav J. Jamdar disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a practicing Advocate , expressing concern  with regard to dearth of stamp vendors in Mumbai and adjoining areas. Relief claimed is diverse. Inter alia, it is prayed that the respondent-State of Maharashtra be directed to consider introduction of e-stamp facility across the State as well as to provide adequate stamp vendors in Mumbai considering the growth of population and litigation. There are also prayers made by the petitioner for directions to conduct inquiry and submit a report into alleged illegal sale and purchase of stamp papers across the State by certain recalcitrant stamp vendors.

Reply affidavit has been filed by the State of Maharashtra wherein it has been stated that in a view to grant permanent stamp vendor licenses to Bar Associations and Advocate Societies, initially amendment in Bombay Stamp Supply & Sales Rules were moved from Respondent No.3 (Additional Controller of Stamps , Mumbai)  to the Government via Respondent No.2 (Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps , Maharashtra) but as per directions from Law & Judiciary Department, Government of Maharashtra, draft Rules of Maharashtra Stamp Supply and Sales Rules are sent for the further process by Respondent No.3 on 21/10/2021 to IGR Office, Pune. After getting sanction from the Government to this draft Rules, the way to grant permanent stamp vendor license to Bar Associations/Advocate Societies will be opened. 

It is true that presently stamp vendor licenses in Mumbai City are small in number. But, over a period of time, there is also a decrease in demand for physical stamp paper purchase due to digital options made available to deposit stamp duty in the Government Treasury. At present (2020-21) in Mumbai City, out of Rs.9,259/- crore stamp duty, revenue of Rs.9,102/- Crore (98.3%) generated are from e-Challan/GRAS/e-SBTR. Rs.94/- Crore (1.02%) from franking machine and Rs.63/- Crore (0.68%) from physical Stamp Papers. The gradual dependency on physical stamp paper is reduced due to digital options available and this is also a reason for decline in the number of private stamp vendors, the affidavit states.

In the rejoiner affidavits the Petitioner argued that the amendment to the B.S.S. & S. Rules 1934 may not be necessary as the associations are a body corporate and can be appointed through their legal representatives. Section 3(30) of the General Clauses Act, 1977 defines the person as below: 

(30) Person.―”Person” shall include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not; 
The officers on the establishment of the Respondent No.3 have deliberately created controversy by creating a special class in license distribution for the Advocate Associations. The said licenses were issued under the directions of the  High Court till the effective mechanism is set up according to the G.R. date 26th March 2004.  The  Respondent No.7 ( Mudrak Vikreta Sangh) was the only interested party instrumental in interfering with the directions of the Court issued vide Order dated 14th October 2014 in W.P. No.263 of 2013. Hence, the Respondent No.3 has initiated a series of communications for no reasons and obstructed the renewal of licenses to Advocate Associations in the midst of corona pandemic.

Further in the rejoinder affidavit the Petitioner states that it is true that the revenue of Rs.94 Crore (1.02%) is generated through franking and Rs.63 Crores (0.68) from physical stamped papers. But the number of buyers is more in the category of the franking and physical stamped papers. For instance, the stamped paper requirement is many times as a single paper of Rs.100/- or Rs.500/- purchased at a time. The buyers have to gather at those few places for buying physical stamped paper which results in long queues . Out of the sale of Rs.63 Crore; only 3-4 vendors in Mumbai have sold the stamped paper for more than Rs.26 Crore and a mathematical proposition can be derived that 12 stamped paper vendors are not enough to cater to the needs of Mumbai. The need of a physical stamped paper of Rs.100 and/or Rs.500/- is a peculiar one and cannot be equated with the bulk stamp duty purchase at the time of purchase/sell of the immovable properties.

Having regard to the pleadings, as noticed above, the High Court  does not propose to examine the matter in any further depth. After all, a policy decision has to be taken by the State of Maharashtra to address the concerns that the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court. Whether or not an e-stamp facility is to be introduced and/or whether the number of stamp vendors is to be increased are within the exclusive domain of the executive. It would not be proper on the part of the Court to make any mandatory direction in that behalf, particularly in view of the extracted contents from the affidavit in reply and which, the petitioner has not specifically denied , observed the High Court.

However, considering that dearth of stamp vendors could pose problems for many and also in view of the fact that the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 6th July 2021 , the High Court is of the considered view that interest of justice would be sufficiently served if this PIL petition is disposed of with directions that follow.  

The Court directed  the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department to look into the said representation and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law upon granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. At the hearing before the Additional Chief Secretary, the petitioner may supplement  his representation by submission of additional compilation of documents in support of his prayers.  

“It is also made clear that the allegations that have been levelled by the petitioner against the respondent no.7 are not examined in this PIL petition. Law provides a forum for redress of the grievance of the petitioner if any stamp vendor has conducted himself/itself contrary to law and is guilty of any penal offence. We may only observe that if there has been any incident in the past giving rise to any penal offence punishable under any existing legislation in force in the State of Maharashtra, of which the petitioner is aware, he may set the criminal law in motion by lodging an appropriate complaint before the appropriate Court whereafter law will take its own course”, the order reads.

The Allahabad High Court on Friday said in an order that the authority which has given permission under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act has the right to withdraw it even if there is no such provision in relevant law.

The Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Vikram D. Chauhan passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Rahul Jaiswal. The Court noted that the premises D-37/110, Badadeo, Varanasi is the premises owned by respondents. An application was moved by them to run a hotel in their premises and such permission was granted under the Sarais Act, 1867.

Subsequently, an application was moved by private respondents for cancellation of the permission on the ground that in view of the Covid-19 pandemic, the owners have suffered losses and are no longer desirous of running the hotel.

Based upon such an application dated August 10, 2021 an order came to be passed by the authority concerned on August 10, 2021 itself.

Subsequently the petitioner sought recall of this order on the ground that he had entered into an agreement with respondents for running of the hotel, and that he is still willing to run it.

It is also alleged that in respect of petitioner’s right to run the hotel, he had instituted an Original Suit, in which an injunction has been granted in his favour, and therefore, he has the right to run the hotel.

The application of petitioner, however, has been rejected by the competent authority order dated September 2, 2021.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the Act of 1867 there exists no provision for cancellation of registration, and therefore the order is without jurisdiction.

Also Read: Allahabad High Court sets aside Mathura judge order appointing receiver at Giriraj Ji Govardhan Mandir Vrindavan

The petition was strongly opposed by R.N. Singh and V.K. Chandel appearing for the respondents. It is urged that since permission to run the hotel was granted on an application moved by private respondents, therefore, the permission can always be withdrawn on their request and the order impugned merits no interference.

So far as private dispute between petitioner and the respondents in respect of the property in issue is concerned, the matter needs to be resolved by the appropriate civil court, where the matter is pending.

However, so far as the permission to run the hotel under the Act of 1867 is concerned, it is apparent that such permission was granted on an application filed by private respondents. The subsequent withdrawal of permission is on an application filed by the same private respondents, the Court observed.

“So far as right of registering authority to revoke the permission is concerned, even though no specific provision is shown to exists in the Act of 1867, yet by virtue of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 the competent authority having granted the permission to run the Sarai can always revoke it, inasmuch as the power to grant permission include the power to revoke at the instance of petitioner, therefore, order need not be interfered with,”

-the Court said while dismissing of the petition.