IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 3255 of 2008 Date of Decision: March 4, 2008 Som Nath Chhabra and others ...Petitioners Versus The Commissioner, Hisar and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. S.S. Godara, Advocate, for the petitioners. M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant petition is directed against the advertisement dated 20.11.2007 (P-3), issued by the Sub Division Officer (Civil), Hisar, inviting applications for allotment of 70 positions of stamp vedors to be appointed for Sub Division, Hisar, which include Sub- Tehsils Adampur, Barwala and Uklana. The petitioners are already licensed stamp vendors since 1984, 2001 and 1996 respectively. Feeling aggrieved that by appointing 70 more stamp vendors, their profit would be marginalised and they would suffer. They have approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the advertisement dated 20.11.2007 (P-3). C.W.P. No. 3255 of 2008 Facts in brief are that all the petitioners have been issued licence of stamp vendor by the Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Hisar-respondent No. 2 under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and the Punjab Stamp Rules, 1934 (for brevity, ‘the Rules). They are stamp vendors for Hisar City and their licenses are valid upto 31.3.2010. The aforementioned Act and Rules have been framed to levy stamp fee on various instruments/transactions like transfer deeds concerning properties or other documents of similar nature. The revenue is generated as the payment of stamp duty is prescribed. The State issues various stamp instruments of judicial and non-judicial types which are available in the State Treasury. For convenience of general public, the Collectors throughout the State, issue licenses to the eligible persons who are known as ‘Stamp Vendor’. On the sale of these papers to the general public some commission is prescribed. The petitioners claim that they are stamp vendors and granted license under Rule 25 of the Rules. Mr. S.S. Godara, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that under Rule 25 of the Rules, the maximum number of licensed stamp vendors is required to be fixed by the Collector of each district in consultation with the Commissioner of the Division. The Collector cannot change the number of such licensed stamp vendors without concurrence of the Commissioner. According to the learned counsel, while fixing the number of stamp vendors, the Collector as well as the Commissioner is required to take into account two significant factors, namely, that adequate number of stamp 2 C.W.P. No. 3255 of 2008 vendors are appointed, taking into account the convenience of general public on one hand and also regard should be paid to the average earning of the stamp vendors at the district and tehsil headquarters on the other hand. According to the learned counsel, appointing 70 stamp vendors would certainly adversely affect the rate of earnings of the petitioners. We have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and do not feel persuaded to accept the same. It would be apposite to read Rule 25 of the Rules, as applicable to the respondent State of Haryana, which reads thus:- “25. Licensed vendors.- The maximum number of licensed vendors for the sale of stamps at the headquarters of each district and tehsil, respectively, shall be fixed by the Collector of each district concerned in consultation with the Commissioner of the division, and the Collector shall not, without the concurrence of the Commissioner, issue licenses at such headquarters to persons in excess of the number so fixed. In the case of towns and villages which are not such headquarters the number of licenses to be granted shall be fixed by the Collector alone. The Collector may grant a temporary license for a limited period to any petition-writer or other person who accompanies on tour an officer whose duties necessitate the use of court-fee stamps by parties appearing before him Notes. (i) The vend arrangements of each district, 3 C.W.P. No. 3255 of 2008 more particularly as regards the distribution of licenses in rural tracts, are in the hands of the Collector, who is responsible, on the one hand, that there is a sufficient number of vendors for the reasonable convenience of the public and, on the other, that a large number of petty vendors are not licensed in excess of local requirements. As regards the number of licenses required for sale of stamps in rural tracts, the Collector is the best judge but the number of licenses granted at Sadr stations and at the headquarters of tehsils has in some districts often called for remarks, and reduction has often seemed desirable. The Commissioner of the division is authorized to take action in the way of reduction, from time to time, when necessary, and the Collector in consultation with the Commissioner of the division, should fix a maximum number, for the Sadr station and each tahsil headquarters, which once fixed, must not be exceeded without the sanction of the Commissioner. (ii) The number of licenses for vend of stamps will, of course, vary according to the circumstances of each district, but care should be taken that an adequate number of licensed vendors is appointed, otherwise the public will be inconvenienced and 4 C.W.P. No. 3255 of 2008 the stamp revenue will suffer. On the other hand regard should be paid to the average earnings of stamp-vendors at district and tahsil headquarters. When these become too low the temptation to various malpractices arises and the demand for higher rates of commission is strengthened. (iii) As regards non-judicial stamps it should be the aim of the Collector to provide the sale of these within the easy reach of all. For this purpose licenses should be issued freely to rural sub or branch post- masters (ex officio and not by name) and village school masters. The concession allowed to this class of licences termed “special licenses” in Rule 26(iv) is that an advance may be made of non- judicial stamps at the start without payment of ready money up to a value not exceeding Rs. 50 for all stamps supplied to such licenses. In excess of this advance a special licenses is required to pay ready money less the discount admissible. The stamps supplied to him as well as his money remittances for their value to the nearest treasury or sub-treasury are to be sent through the post in insured parcels, the charges for postage and insurance being borne by the Stamp department. The licensee may remit the amounts by ordinary money order, the Stamp department bearing the 5 C.W.P. No. 3255 of 2008 charge for commission. The licensee receiving such advance shall give a receipt for the money value thereof, which receipt shall be renewed from year to year in the manner prescribed for permanent advances on account of contingent expenditure. When the Government servant ceases to be specially licensed or desires to discontinue the advance, he shall refund the value entered in the receipt, either in money or in stamps of the class which he is licensed to sell and shall be granted a receipt for the same by the officer to whom the refund is made the original receipt given by the specially licensed vendor being retained on behalf of Government. When any Government servant specially licensed, makes over charge to another Government servant also specially licensed, he shall obtain from him a receipt for the advance made over to him in stamps. (iv) It is manifest that a much smaller number of vendors will suffice for the retail of judicial stamps than for the retail of non-judicial stamps. The former are rarely required except for use in a Court of law, and if they are readily procurable in the vicinity of the Court in which they are to be used, the public convenience, as well as the interests of the revenue, will be sufficiently provided for. 6 C.W.P. No. 3255 of 2008 What is essential is that at all places where there is a Court whether at a Sadr or tahsil station or in detached localities court-fee stamps shall be readily procurable both from treasurers and their agents and such “other vendors” as may be licensed. The right to sell court-fee stamps is no longer to be refused to “other vendors” selling non-judicial stamps. (v) While it is desirable that the contracting treasurer of the district or division through his agents, should not have a monopoly of the sale of stamps (Government of India resolution No. 5583-S.R., dated the 8th December, 1899), the Collector should see that the number of licensed stamp vendors provides a little healthy competition with the agents of the contracting treasurer at district and tahsil headquarters and is not so great as to reduce the profits of the contracting treasurer to an undesirable extent.” A perusal of Rule 25 of the Rules shows that when the licenses for stamp vendors are to be issued at headquarters then the Collector is required to consult the Commissioner and he cannot issue the licenses at such headquarter to persons in excess of the number so fixed. In respect of stamp vendors of towns and villages, the number of licenses could be fixed by the Collector alone. However, note (ii) below Rule 25 of the Rules clarifies that for deciding the number of 7 C.W.P. No. 3255 of 2008 stamp vendors two factors, namely, convenience of public and the commission earned by the stamp vendors should be taken into account by the Collector or the Commissioner as the case may be. But the final decision has been left to the Collector or the Commissioner. It is also pertinent to notice that note (iv) postulate a liberal approach as it prohibits the refusal of right to sell court fee stamps to other vendors selling non-judicial stamps. Note (v) also contemplates that the Collector should see that the number of licensed stamp vendors provide a healthy competition with the agents of the contracting treasurer at district and tehsil headquarters by keeping in view the profit of the contracting treasurer. Even note (iii) talks of sale of non-judicial stamps and the aim of the Collector should be to provide the sale of such stamps within easy reach of all. The license should be issued freely to rural sub or branch post-masters as ‘special licenses’ as contemplated by Rule 26(iv) of the Rules. In totality, a liberal approach in the appointment of stamp vendors is desirable, which is evident, after combined reading of Rule 25 with notes. It is not possible for us to go into the subjective satisfaction of the Commissioner/Collector when they increased the number of stamp vendors in the sub-tehsils of Hisar, namely, Adampur, Barwala and Uklana. The determination for increase in the number of stamp vendors must have been necessitated by the load of work and by weighing convenience of public along with commission margin of the stamp vendors. In any case, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners cannot make a complaint because the principles of volenti non fit injuria would be attracted because the 8 C.W.P. No. 3255 of 2008 injury in the shape of reduced profit, which the petitioners may suffer, is actuated by legal process involving larger public interest without harming their legal rights. The decision in increase of number of stamp vendors is in public interest as the litigation as well as transactions concerning properties have increased manifold. The petitioners have failed to put forward any data showing that the increase made is not necessary in comparison to the work available. In the absence of any such data, we cannot sustain the argument that the provisions of Rule 25 of the Rules read with notes, has been violated by the respondents. There is, thus, no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) March 4, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor Reporter: Yes 9