IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.6426 of 2008 ====================================================== Arjun Singh son of Sri Kameshwar Prasad Singh, resident of Village- dhanra, P.S. Bikram, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector-Cum-District Registrar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Collector (Stamp), Legal Section, Patna. 4. The District Sub-Registrar, Bikram, District-Patna 5. The Sub-Registrar, Bikram, Dist- Patna. 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bikram- Patna. 7. The Treasury Officer, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha I Mr. Bhola Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shashi Shekhar (Sc9) ====================================================== 2 12.07.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order as contained in Annexure-2 passed by the District Magistrate, Patna vide Memo No. XVII-90-2007/5031 dated 18.12.2007 whereby, the petitioner's stamp vendor license has been cancelled on the ground that without depositing the required amount in the Bank, the Deed was registered, as reported by the In-charge Additional Registrar-Cum-Circle Officer, Dulhin Bazar vide letter No. 392 on the recommendation of Deputy Collector In-Charge, Legal Section. It appears that the Deed was registered after depositing the required amount in the Vikram branch of the Punjab National Bank on 13.02.2007, but in the bank account of the Additional Registrar, Vikram, the amount was deposited on 28.02.2007 by the Bank, but on the basis of the challan dated 13.02.2007, the deed was registered. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry report as well as the recommendation of the Additional Registrar, Vikram-Cum-Circle Officer and the Deputy Collector, Legal Section, which was the basis of issuance of the impugned order, were not supplied to the petitioner. This contention of the petitioner is not controverted by the learned counsel for the State as neither the impugned order, as contained in Annexure- 2, nor the show cause notice as issued by the respondent authorities suggest that these documents were supplied to the petitioner nor those two documents have been brought on the record by the respondents along with the counter affidavit. It is further contended that the Manager of Punjab National Bank, Vikram Branch intimated to the Additional Registrar, Vikram that the money was received on 13.02.2007 but due to some mistake, it could be deposited in the Bank account of the Addl. Registrar, Bikram on 28.02.2007 and the said mistake occured due to the lack of adequate staff in the Bank. This contention of the petitioner has been accepted by the respondent authorities in the letter written by the Additional Registrar, Vikram to the District Additional Registrar, Patna vide memo no. 84 dated 08.03.2007 as contained in Annexure-R/1 to the counter affidavit as the Additional Registrar, Vikram has admitted that the Bank officials have admitted that the money was deposited in the account on 28.02.2007 due to their mistake, where it was also admitted that the challan dated 13.02.2007 through which, the money was deposited in the account, forms the part of the deed in question. It is lastly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact after the enquiry it has come that the Additional Registrar, Vikram vide memo no. 313 dated 25.07.2007 as contained in Annexure-5, restrained the son of the petitioner namely Pankaj Kumar from entering into the office as it was suspected that the deed was got registered by showing the challan by the son of the petitioner. It is contended by learned counsel for the State that the show cause notices were issued on 03.05.2007, but for the first time, the petitioner filed his reply to show cause on 30.11.2007. Considering the rival contention of the parties, this Court finds that the basis of cancellation of the license of the petitioner, is that he got the Deed registered without depositing the amount in the Bank but for that the Bank authorities have accepted their lapses and the same was communicated to the Patna Registry Office by the Additional Registrar, Vikram. Moreover, there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner actually got the Deed registered because for the same charge, the son of the petitioner was restrained from entering into the office and non- supply of the enquiry report or recommendation of the authorities eventually prejudiced the case of the petitioner. Hence, in view of this Court, the impugned order of canceling the license has been issued on the basis of charge for which the petitioner is absolutely not responsible/liable. In the circumstances, this Court has no option but to quash the memo no. XVIII-90-2007/5031 dated 18.12.2007 issued by District Magistrate, Patna, hence it is quashed. Consequently, the application is allowed. Amrendra Kumar/- (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)