present case, the petitioner is not convicted though separate FIR is registered against the petitioner. She, therefore, submitted that the premise on which the impugned order is passed, is not in existence and consequently impugned order is liable to be set aside. She submitted that Section 63 is wholly inapplicable in the present case. Even otherwise, by the impugned order, excessive penalty is imposed on the petitioner. She further submitted that in pursuance of the impugned order, the petitioner’s stamp vendor licence is cancelled. She submitted that in case the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, liberty may be reserved to the petitioner to apply for licence in future and appropriate direction may be issued to respondents to consider the petitioner's application in accordance with law, in the event the petitioner applies for licence without prejudice to his rights and contentions, 4. On the other hand, Mr. Rayrikar supported the impugned order. He has invited my attention to reply of the petitioner dated 7.8.2013. The petitioner admitted breach of Rule 13(1) of the Bombay Stamps Supply and Sales Rules, 1934 (for short, 'Rules'). He further submitted that respondent no.1 has invoked Rule 10 of the Rules while revoking the licence. He further states that presently the State Government has taken a policy decision not to grant any licence. He further states that in case, in future there is any change in the Government policy and Government decides to issue licences and in case the petitioner applies, his
