RSA No. 3030 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 3030 of 2010 Date of Decision: 28.01.2011. Rajan Batta .......Appellant Vs. The Collector, Patiala District, Patiala ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for declaration that he is entitled to be issued the licence for stamp vendor in the Mini Secretariat, Patiala. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that he had applied for issuance of licence of stamp vendor for the Mini Secretariat, Patiala on 1.2.2004 but despite the said fact he had not been issued the licence. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendant, in his written statement, has averred that no application dated 01.2.2004 had been received in the office of the defendant. The plaintiff had submitted two applications dated 02.3.2004 and 07.6.2004 for the issuance of stamp vendor licence for District Courts, Patiala. However, there was no vacancy of stamp vendor in District Courts, Patiala. RSA No. 3030 of 2010 -2- On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of declaration as detailed in the head note of the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of mandatory injunction as detailed in the head note of the plaint? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands as he has suppressed the material facts from the court? OPD 6. Relief.” The trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 19.2.2008. In the appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the District Judge, Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 30.7.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The plaintiff during his cross examination had admitted that he had applied for licence of stamp vendor vide application Ex.P-6 dated 02.5.2004 for District Courts, Patiala. The plaintiff had failed to lead any evidence to the effect that he had also applied for licence of stamp vendor for Mini Secretariat, RSA No. 3030 of 2010 -3- Patiala. Moreover, the plaintif could not further establish that there was any vacancy of stamp vendor at District Courts, Patiala. In these circumstance, both the courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff as the plaintiff had failed to establish that he had applied for licence of stamp vendor for Mini Secretariat, Patiala. No substantial question of law arises in this case. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 28, 2011 Gurpreet