IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.42 of 2007 UMA SHANKAR PRASAD, S/O LATE HRIDAY NARAYAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-DAILAMAN CHAK, P.S.- BARK, P.O.-BHETGOAN, DISTRICT-PATNA. …………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SRI B.B. SRIVASTAVA, THE SECRETARY, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. SRI RAVINDRA POWAR, THE COMMISSIONER, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA. 4. SRI JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, THE COLLECTOR, PATNA. ……………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 6 11.02.2009 This contempt application has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the order dated 20.11.2002 passed by this Court in CWJC No. 8144 of 2002. On perusal of the order, it appears that the petitioner’s writ application was found to be pre-mature as the stand of the District Magistrate/Collector Patna in his order of rejection of the representation of the petitioner was to the effect that the vacancies of Stamp Vendors in the Collectorate, Patna has not yet been notified. Therefore, it was observed that the District Magistrate may enquire from the concerned officers/treasury or the Board of Revenue as to whether such vacancies exist or not and if such vacancies exist, then the District Magistrate/Collector, Patna “shall notify the vacancies and require the candidatures of competent candidates and at that point of time petitioner would be entitled to make his application.” With the said observations, the writ application was disposed of. Petitioner filed this contempt application alleging 2 that he had submitted his application for his appointment on compassionate ground but the same has not been considered by the District Magistrate/Collector, Patna whereas other persons have been appointed on compassionate ground without verifying the vacancies and notifying the same. In paragraph 12 of the supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has disclosed three such names who are alleged to have been appointed in violation of the orders of this Court. After considering the averments made in the said paragraph 12 of supplementary affidavit and going through the description of the 3 persons, it is apparent that one was appointed in the District of Arwal and the other was appointed in Begusarai District. So far as remaining Haribandar Prasad Singh is concerned, it is stated in paragraph 4 of the supplementary show cause that he has been appointed on the orders of A.I.G. (Registration). It has also been said in the supplementary show cause that a letter has been issued by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Registration dated 4.9.2006 informing all the Collectors that in view of ongoing work of computerization and setting up of franking machines, the necessity, usefulness and the numbers of Stamp Vendors has to be examined. Therefore, it has been directed that in the changed situation the Collector would take a considered decision in the matter of granting Stamp Vendor license on compassionate grounds. It appears that the appointment of Stamp Vendor on 3 compassionate ground has not been altogether banned but the fact remains that the Collector, Patna has not yet verified the vacancies. It is stated in the show cause that in view of the said instruction of the Department, the application of the petitioner for granting him Stamp Vendor license has been rejected by order dated 6.2.2007 by the Collector holding that there was no need of new Stamp Vendor in the District of Patna. If that statement on oath made in the supplementary show cause is to be accepted then it has to be ensured that the Collector, Patna does not issue any Stamp Vendor license to any person in future. In case, at any point of time, the question of granting new Stamp Vendor license is taken into consideration by the Collector, Patna, it is obvious that the claim of the petitioner for grant of such license and appointment on compassionate ground has to be considered first. It is also made clear that in case the Collector, Patna receives any instructions from any higher authority for grant of Stamp Vendor license to any person, he shall draw the attention of the authority to the orders of this Court and shall make a proposal for consideration of the case of the petitioner first for the purpose. In the facts and circumstances, at this stage this Court does not find that any case is made out by the petitioner for proceeding in the contempt and therefore, the contempt application is disposed of with the above observations and directions. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh , J. )