The High Court of Bombay entertained a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a stamp vendor licence. The court held that the impugned order did not suffer from non-application of mind and declining detailed reasons, dismissing the petition.
Writ petition dismissed; parties to bear their own costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J.
WRIT PETITION NO. 862 OF 2007
Milind Vithal Salgaonkar v/s. State of Maharashtra and others
.. Petitioner
.. Respondents
Mr. R.A. Shaikh i/by Mr. Avinash Chindane for the Petitioner. Mr. K.R. Belosey, Governemnt Pleader for the State.
CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
DATED : 15TH OCTOBER, 2007
P.C.
By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner questions the correctness and legality of the show-cause notice dated 23rd May, 2003 and the order dated 14th August, 2003 (Exhibits A' and C' respectively of the petition) passed under Bombay Stamps Act by the competent authority.
2
and the petitioner was not present in the premises. Thereafter, show-cause notice dated 23rd May, 2003 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted reply to the said show-cause notice on 31st May, 2003. The respondent No.2 then by the impugned order, cancelled the stamp vending licence issued to the petitioner. The petitioner states that he had made various representations for recalling of the said order and for restoration of his licence but with no consequences. According to the petitioner, the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind and even the reply filed by the petitioner had not been considered by the authorities. The order, therefore, is alleged to be arbitrary and it is urged that the consequences of the impugned order are so serious and have been completely disproportionate to the allegations made against the petitioner in the show-cause notice.
“SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
Special Squad of the Office visited to your vending place on dt. 02.05.2003 and brought in to notice the following deficiency. Therefore, according to the notice you are required to give explanation for the following points.
3
recorded as Nil since 10 to 15 days in registers.
Thus, seriously thinking on above matter, as per this notice give explanation as to why your licence should not be cancelled within four days to the office, otherwise we will think that you don't want to give any explanation for the same and take note that criminal action can also be taken against you.
Sd/-
The Superintendent of Stamps Mumbai
No. Est./L.S.V.MISA/1820, The General Stamp Office, Nagar Bhavan, Fort, Mumbai 400 023.
Date : 23 May, 2003
Copy to : Mr. Milind Salgaonkar, (Licensed Stamp Vendor)”
4
part of the authorities concerned while passing of the impugned order. Hence, the present case does not call for any interference.
CHIEF JUSTICE
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order cancelling the stamp vendor licence suffers from non-application of mind.
Whether the superior court should interfere with the administrative order absent detailed reasoning.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Milind Vithal Salgaonkar
State of Maharashtra
Swatanter Kumar
D.Y. Chandrachud
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
