IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 18TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16166 of 2009(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- GEETHA.S., AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.GANGADHARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT TC NO.19/1998(1), SRUTHY, THAMALAM, POOJAPPURA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SMT.KVP.JAYALEKSHMY SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT TREASURY DIRECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVINDAKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.16166/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 11/07/2005 OF THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER. P2 COPY OF TH APPLICATION DATED 15/03/2006 ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 07/11/2006 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P4 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 15/11/2007 TO THE APPLICATION DATED 22/10/2007 SENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26/07/2007 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P6 COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDEGMENT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF EXT.P5. P7 COPY OF THE CHALLAN RECEIPT INDICATING THE APPLICATION OF MONEY ON 15/03/2006 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL SUB TREASURY. P8 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13/09/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. P9 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13/09/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. P10 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13/09/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT. P11 COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE ISSUANCE OF EXT.P8 REPRESENTATION. P12 COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN WP(C) NO.29692/2007. P13 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15/12/2008 IN WP(C)NO.29692/2007. P14 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 02/04/2009. P15 COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P16 COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.G431022/05 DATED 08/04/2009. P17 COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.GO(P)NO.156/07 DATED 13.07.2007. P18 COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 11/07/2006 ON THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. WP(C)NO.16166/2009 P19 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/10/2007 ISSUED BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER. P20 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/12/2010 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P21 COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF THE STAMP PAPERS AVAILABLE WITH THE PETITIONER. P22 COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 15/3/2006. P23 COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE DISTRICT COMMITTEE MEETING DATED 15/7/2006. P24 COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE ON THE MEETING ON 20/6/2006 TO GRANT LICENCE. P25 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/4/2007 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO THE PETITIONER CALLING UPON HER TO FURNISH DECLARATION/AFFIDAVIT. P26 COPY OF THE DECLARATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 24/4/2007 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 16166 of 2009 M ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 7th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner's father was a permanent stamp vendor. According to the petitioner, on her father falling ill, he requested that the petitioner be issued temporary licence as stamp vendor. Accordingly, temporary licence was issued for various periods and Ext.P1 is one of the temporary licence so issued. 2. According to the petitioner, during 2006, applications were invited for granting permanent licences and thereupon, she submitted Ext.P2 application dated 15-03- 2006, enclosing a challan towards the fee payable. Ext.P24 is the list of 29 applicants, who were recommended for granting permanent licences and Ext.P23 is the minutes of the District Committee Meeting appointing 28 of the applicants. 3. Subsequently, by Ext.P25 dated 20-04-2007, petitioner was informed that her application was not W.P.(C) No.16166/2009 : 2 : accompanied by a declaration that she does not possess any other licence and, therefore, she was asked to produce such a declaration before 05-05-2007. Petitioner submits that accordingly, declaration was submitted by her under cover of Ext.P26 dated 24-04-2007. Even thereafter, her application was not considered and, therefore, she submitted Exts.P8 to P11 representations. 4. At that stage, petitioner filed W.P(C) No.29692/2007, complaining that her application for permanent licence was not considered. Respondents justified their inaction, pointing out that following the appointment of 28 persons, complaints were received from the Stamp Vendors Association, making allegations against the appointments made and that it was on account of the pendency of those complaints that the petitioner's application was kept pending. Therefore, in Ext.P13 judgment, this Court directed that a decision be taken on the complaint made by the Association and that depending upon the decision so taken, the W.P.(C) No.16166/2009 : 3 : application made by the petitioner be considered. 5. Subsequently, by Ext.P14 dated 02-04-2009, petitioner was called for an interview, which was held on 06- 04-2009. The petitioner appeared for the interview and also submitted Ext.P15 hearing note reiterating her claim for appointment. Finally, the respondents passed Ext.P16 order, stating that in view of Ext.P17 Rules, which came into force with effect from 13-07-2007, petitioner will have to apply afresh under the new Rules. Petitioner states that if she is to make an application under the new Rules, in view of clauses 3 and 22 of Ext.P17, she will be ineligible for appointment. 6. It is contended that since she had made an application complete in all respects, by declining to consider her application, along with the 29 other applicants, who were recommended, of whom 28 were granted licences, she has been discriminated. On this ground, this writ petition has been filed, mainly pleading that her application is liable to be considered under the Rules which were in force as at the time W.P.(C) No.16166/2009 : 4 : when the application was made or at least when she submitted the undertaking on 24-04-2007 in response to Ext.P25. 7. On the other hand, contention raised by the learned Government Pleader is mainly that, petitioner cannot plead discrimination. According to him, the persons who were granted licences had all submitted the undertaking and that in the absence of the undertaking that she did not possess any licence, the petitioner's application was defective and hence could not have been considered when Ext.P24 list of the recommended persons was prepared or when the District Committee held its meeting, the minutes of which is Ext.P23. It is stated that since the application was defective, although it was open to the respondents to have rejected the petitioner's application, still, on a humanitarian consideration, Ext.P25 was issued, calling upon the petitioner to cure the defect by furnishing the undertaking. 8. It is stated that in the meanwhile, following the W.P.(C) No.16166/2009 : 5 : receipt of the complaints made by the Stamp Vendors Association, the Director of Treasuries had, as per letter dated 13-11-2006, instructed the respondents to stop fresh appointment of stamp vendors till further orders. It is stated that this order stopping further appointments remained in force, till the whole issue was considered pursuant to Ext.P13 judgment rendered on 15-02-2008. It is stated that it is by the time Ext.P16 order was issued considering the claim of the petitioner, Ext.P17 Rules had already come into force with effect from 13-07-2007. Therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader, not only that there is no discrimination shown to the petitioner, but also, that in view of the change in the Rules, the petitioner will have to apply afresh under the new Rules. 9. It is the settled position of law, that an application made for licence will have to be considered not with reference to the law that prevails on the date of application, but with reference to the law that prevails on the date of its W.P.(C) No.16166/2009 : 6 : consideration. See, in this connection, the Full Bench judgment of this Court in State of Kerala Vs. Raveendran Pillai [2010 (2) KLT 25(FB)]. The only exception to this can be a situation wherein the petitioner is able to demonstrate that as at the time when 29 applicants were recommended and 28 among them were appointed in 2006, her application was valid in all respects and that by not considering the same, she was discriminated in the matter. If she succeeds in that respect, she can possibly contend that at least on equitable considerations, her application is liable to be considered, with reference to the law that was prevailing at the time when others were granted licence in 2006. 10. While considering this issue, what is to be examined first is whether there was any defect in the petitioner's application and whether the respondents were justified in issuing Ext.P25 by which the petitioner was called upon to produce a declaration. Appointment of stamp vendors is governed by the provisions of the Kerala W.P.(C) No.16166/2009 : 7 : Manufacture and Sale of Stamp Rules, 1960. In 2006, when applications were made, no form was prescribed in the Rules for making the applications. Only when the Rules were amended, Form-1A was prescribed for making applications. However, learned Government Pleader brought to my notice, Circular No.16490/E2/2000 dated 12-02-2001, issued by the Taxes (E) Department, regulating the appointments of stamp vendors. This Circular provides for notification of vacancies inviting applications and the procedure to be followed. Among others, this Circular also provided that the applicants should file an affidavit that they do not possess any other licence. Since during 2006, when the petitioner made her application, this Circular was in force, petitioner had the obligation to comply with the requirements laid down therein and the question to be examined is whether the application made by the petitioner satisfied the conditions laid down in the Circular. 11. Ext.P2 is the application made by the petitioner. Ext.P2 does not contain any declaration to the effect that he W.P.(C) No.16166/2009 : 8 : does not possess any licence. Petitioner also has no case that she filed any affidavit that she does not possess any licence. It is this inadequacy which is pointed out to the petitioner as per Ext.P25, in response to which, the petitioner submitted Ext.P26. Therefore, Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner was defective and if that be so, petitioner cannot claim that the defective application was not considered and, therefore, she was discriminated when 28 others, who had made valid applications, were appointed. By the time, Ext.P25 was issued and declaration was submitted as per Ext.P26, the Director of Treasuries had already imposed a ban by his letter dated 13-11-2006. Going by the case pleaded by the respondents, the ban continued till 2009 and in the meanwhile Ext.P17 Rules came into force with effect from 13-07-2007. This means that when Ext.P16 was issued, Ext.P17 was the Rules governing appointment of stamp vendors and if the petitioner's application was to be considered, it could be done only as per Ext.P17 Rules. If W.P.(C) No.16166/2009 : 9 : that be so, the respondents cannot be faulted in their view in Ext.P16 that the petitioner will have to make application under Ext.P17, the new Rules that came into force with effect from 13-07-2007. 12. In the result, I see no reason to interfere with Ext.P16. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge