IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2300 of 2010 1. SUBASH YADAV S/O BAL KISHUN YADAV R/O RAJENDRA NAGAR, WARD NO. 22, P.S.- GOPALGANJ, DISTT.- GOPALGANJ Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, REGISTRATION DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GOPALGANJ 5. THE DISTRICT SUB REGISTRAR, GOPALGANJ ----------- 2/ 26/04/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner came to this Court earlier in C.W.J.C. No.9629 of 2009 for renewal of his stamp vendor licence. The Court declined to examine his claims on merits but granted him liberty to pursue matters before the authorities. In view of the liberty granted by the Court there can be no doubt that the impugned order dated 14.9.2009 declining to consider his prayer for renewal on the ground that the writ petition had been dismissed is not sustainable in law. Had the Court not granted liberty, the matter would have been entirely different. The grant of liberty necessarily connotes the right to pursue matters afresh with an obligation on the respondents to consider the same in accordance with law notwithstanding their own earlier orders or actions. In AIR S.C. 39 (A.P. State Financial Corporation v. C.M. Ashok Raju) it has been held at paragraph 6 as follows:- “6. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents have strenuously contended that the 2 special leave petitions against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in writ appeals, having been rejected by this Court, the High Court judgment has achieved finality and, as such, these appeals are liable to be dismissed on that short ground. We do not agree with the learned counsel. This Court while rejecting the petitions as withdrawn, granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court and point out the case which was sought to be pleaded before this Court. In other words, this Court prima facie found the contentions of the petitioner to be plausible and, as such, granted liberty to raise the same before the High Court. The High Court heard the parties at length and passed a reasoned order running into sixteen pages. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are not inclined to agree with the learned counsel that the judgment of the High Court in writ appeals has achieved finality.” The matter relates to renewal of a stamp vendor licence of 2009 which is done annually. To that extent the matter has now become academic. Such licence being annual in nature, no useful purpose is going to be served by any direction for consideration and grant of a licence pertaining to the year-2009. It is not known whether there has been no application for renewal made in the year-2010. From the pleadings of the parties, the writ petition and the counter affidavit, the Court is satisfied that the petitioner had made deposit for renewal of his stamp vendor licence for the year-2009 in due time on 27.12.2008 as apparent from the treasury challan receipt at Annexure- 3 not denied in the counter affidavit. Equally, the Court finds that it is not in dispute that the petitioner never submitted a formal application thereafter in time allegedly 3 on grounds of his illness as sought to be explained on his behalf. If the licence fee has not been enhanced and subject to deposit of the balance amount, if any, if the petitioner submits an application for grant of stamp vendor licence for the year-2011, let the same be considered in accordance with law expeditiously when the deposit made earlier on 27.12.2008 is required to be duly considered in the manner directed and the application be disposed off in accordance with law within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)