Ram Prasad Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:7962

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 1671 of 2015

¶6

1 - Smt. Jyoti Meshram W/o Shri Abhishek Meshram, Aged About 28 Years R/o Netaji Chowk, Katora Talab, Rajrajeshwari Near Mateshwari Temple, Raipur, P.S. Raipur Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

¶7

--- Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Registrar And License Officer, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Senior District Registrar And License Officer, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Commissioner, Raipur, Division, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - Collector, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

--- Respondent(s)

¶14

WPC No. 1676 of 2015

¶15

1 - Umashankar Sen S/o Shri Dular Sen, Aged About 37 Years R/o Hanuman Gudi Chowk, Awadhiyapara, Police Station - Purani Basti, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶16

--- Petitioner(s)

¶17

Versus

¶18

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Registrar And License Officer, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶19

2 - Senior District Registrar And Lincense Officer, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶20

3 - Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶21

4 - Collector, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶22

--- Respondent(s)

¶23

WPC No. 1708 of 2015

¶24

1 - Ram Prasad Sahu S/o D. R. Sahu, Aged About 50 Years R/o Shankar Nagar, Khamardih, Raipur, Present Address- Dhaneshwari Clinic, Near Pururshottam Building, Daldal Seoni, Raipur, Police Station Pandri Mova, Raipur, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶25

ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN

¶26

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.02.21 14:42:46 +0530

¶27

2

¶28

--- Petitioner(s)

¶29

Versus

¶30

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Registrar And License Officer, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶31

2 - Senior District Registrar And License Officer, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶32

3 - Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶33

4 - Collector, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶34

--- Respondent(s)

¶35

and

¶36

WPC No. 1662 of 2015

¶37

1 - Ishwar Prasad Sahu S/o Late T. R. Sahu, Aged About 35 Years R/o Laxman Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶38

--- Petitioner(s)

¶39

Versus

¶40

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralay, New Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶41

2 - District Registrar And License Officer, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶42

3 - Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶43

... Respondents
For Petitioners in WPC No. 1671/2015, 1676/2015 & 1708/2015 : Mr. Awadh Tripathi & Mr. Shikhar Agnihotri, Advocate.
For Petitioner in WPC No. 1662/2015 : Mr. Karunendra Narayan Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate.
For State : Ms. Soumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶44

Order on Board

¶45

14.02.2025

¶46

Since common question of facts and law are involved in the bunch of these writ petitions, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. For sake of convenience, WPC No. 1671/2015 is being treated as lead case.

¶47

These petitions have been preferred by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 23.06.2015 passed by the Senior District Registrar & License Authority, Raipur by which

¶48

3

¶49

license issued in favour of the petitioners for selling stamp has been revoked and the petitioners have also assailed the order of revision dated 12.08.2015 passed by the learned Commissioner Raipur Division, Raipur by which the revision filed by the petitioners against order dated 23.06.2015 has been rejected.

¶50

The brief facts as reflected from records are that the license was issued to the petitioners by the Collector of Stamp, Raipur as per details mentioned in the table for selling non-judicial stamps. It is the case of the petitioners that on 16.06.2015, show cause notice were issued to the petitioners asking them to submit reply why the license may not be revoked as there is violation of Rule 27(A)(B)(C), Rule 46 of the Chhattisgarh Stamp Rules, 1942 as well as also clause 3 and 7 and Condition No. 1, 5, and 6 of the license. In the said show cause notice, it has also been stated that they are not selling the stamp on the place for which they are authorized as they are selling stamps at premised of District Court Raipur which is not authorized place for selling the stamp. They were also charged for selling the stamp on double price and against one of the petitioner the allegation is that she has misbehaved with the complainant. The details of petitioners, reason for cancelation, date of issuance of license are given in tabular form as under:

¶51

Case No.	Name of Petitioner	Date of Issuance of License	Date of Cancellation of License	Reason for cancellation
WP(C) No. 1671/2015	Smt. Jyoti Meshram	20.04.2012	23.06.2015	The stamps are being sold in unauthorized place and she has misbehaved with complainant
WP(C) No. 1676/2015	Umashankar Sen	07.08.2012	23.06.2015	Selling stamps in an

¶52

4

¶53

				authorized place
WP(C) No. 1708/2015	Ram Prasad Sahu	03.05.1997	23.06.2015	Selling stamps in an authorized place
WP(C) No. 1662/2015	Ishwar Prasad Sahu	In the year 1995	23.06.2015	Selling stamps in an authorized place

¶54

The petitioners in their reply have admitted their allegations and have contended that since they have no other source of income and their residential there is no proper sale of the stamps which has compelled them to sale at District Court Raipur and have prayed for condoning the allegations levied against them. The Senior District Registrar & License Authority, Raipur vide order dated 23.06.2015 revoked the licenses issued in favour of the petitioners. Against that, the petitioners have preferred revision before the Commission Raipur Division, Raipur which has also rejected vide order dated 12.08.2015. Both these orders have been assailed by the petitioner in these writ petitions.

¶55

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have been granted license for the year 2012, 2012, 1997 & 1995 respectively and there was no complaint against them and after a long period of grant of their license their license have been revoked which is harsh penalty for them. It has been further contended that for the last 9 years petitioner have no sold any stamps caused huge financial loss and difficult to maintain their livelihood. Thus, they would submit that a lenient view may be taken by interfering in the quantum of punishment imposed upon them They would further submit that the impugned orders relating to revocation of license as well as revisional order, are bad in law and against the principle of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to them while passing the aforesaid orders. They would further submit that

¶56

5

¶57

the allegations levelled against the petitioners have not been proved and mere allegation without proving the same is not sufficient to pass any harsh order of revocation of license. They would further submit that no enquiry has been conducted to ascertain the factual matrix of the case, hence would pray for setting aside the order of revocation of license as well as the revisional order.

¶58

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that show cause notice was issued the petitioners and in reply of the same, the petitioners have admitted the fact that they are selling stamp on the place not authorized for them which is in violation of conditions mentioned in the license, therefore, there is no requirement of conducting the enquiry, hence, the penalty of revocation of license has been imposed upon the petitioners which just, legal and justified and does not warrant any interference by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions.

¶59

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction.

¶60

It is not in dispute that the license was issued in favour of the petitioners in the year the year 2012, 2012, 1997 & 1995 respectively for selling the stamp on a particular places still they have sold the stamps at District Court premises which is clear violation of the rules and conditions of the license, but considering the fact that the revocation order was passed in the years 2015 and more than 9 years have already been lapsed and they are not in employment causing difficulty for them to maintain themselves.

¶61

Considering the aforesaid peculiar circumstances and also considering the fact that the petitioners have already suffered a lot, I am of the view

¶62

6

¶63

that the impugned orders of revocation and revisional orders deserve to be quashed and accordingly they are quashed. The petitioners are at liberty to move afresh application before the concerned authority for restoration of licence for selling stamp, which shall be considered and decided by the concerned authority on merits as per the Rule, 1942 without being prejudice to the fact that earlier licence granted to them was revoked by the respondent No. 2 and its revocation has been affirmed by respondent No. 1.

¶64

With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the writ petitions are

¶65

allowed.

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶68

Judge

¶69

Arun

Ram Prasad Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Prasad Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Ferro Concrete Construction i Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sona Raksel Vs Smt. Krishna Khatik

Juli Bhansali Vs Sanjay Singhi

Co-Operative Marketing Society Maryadit Vs Board of Revenue

Rashmita Patel Vs Vivekanand Patel

Veer Kotadiya Vs Sunil Kotadiya