IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9639 of 2006 KAMESHWAR PRASAD, S/o Late Mahendra Prasad, Resident of Village- Madhubani, P.S.- Bajpatti, Distt.- Sitamarhi, at present resident of Dumra, Ward no.6, P.S.- Dumra, Distt.- Sitamarhi. . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Inspector General, Registration, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Sitamarhi. 4. The Treasury Officer, Sitamarhi. . . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 3/ 09.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner prays for a direction to the respondent State Authorities to issue / release General court fee stamps, as he is a valid license holder having license no. 1/85-86. The petitioner has been selling court fee stamps in the District of Sitamarhi. Initially the petitioner submits that out of personal enmity his own maternal brother, namely, Jitendra Kumar, filed a complaint before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi, alleging that he sold him a fake stamp worth Rs.10/-. The aforesaid complaint was filed on 12.09.2003. After some time on 16.10.2003, the aforesaid Jitendra Kumar realizing his mistake filed a petition for dismissing his complaint petition. After perusal of the materials on record Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi, took cognizance for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (Annexure-11) vide order dated 08.08.2005. The petitioner states that almost after three years, the aforesaid Jitendra Kumar has filed a complaint before the Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court. The Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court vide Memo no. 904 dated 24.01.2006 requested the District & Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi to make a detailed enquiry into the matter, a copy of the letter was also sent - 2 - to District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, for information and necessary action. Learned counsel submits that thereafter an enquiry into the matter was started by Sub-Divisional Officer, Sitamarhi. The petitioner submits that the enquiry into the matter is still continuing and more than three years have elapsed. He further submits that on account of the pendency of the enquiry, the licnese of the petitioner has not been renewed since 1996. Learned counsel for the State submits that as the petitioner did not deposit the license fee, his license was not renewed on this count also. The petitioner refers to Annexure-7 and submits that he has filed representation for renewal of his license but on account of pendency of aforesaid enquiry, licnese fee of the petitioner was not accepted. As the enquiry is pending since long, this Court directs the District Administration, Sitamarhi District, to complete the enquiry within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case, the enquiry report does not point to guilt of the petitioner, the licensing authority may consider renewing the license of the petitioner, subject to deposit of license fees. With the aforesaid observation this application is, accordingly disposed of. Let a copy of this order be handed over to JC to AAG II. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)