In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 12167 of 2007 Date of decision:February 28, 2008 Vijay Kuamr ---Petitioner Vs. Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present: Mr.Arihant Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab. *** M.M.KUMAR. J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution prays for quashing order dated 3.8.2006(Annexure P-2) passed by the District Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur holding that the petitioner, who is a stamp vendor has committed lapses by violating the provisions of Rule 28(x) and (xiii) (e) of the Punjab Stamp Rules, 1934 (for brevity 'the Rules'). The aforementioned order has been affirmed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar on 20.6.2007 by observing as under:- “I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and comments offered by the Collector, Hoshiarpur and have gone through the record received in the case and papers C.W.P. No. 12167 of 2007 -2- brought on the file. I find that the order of the Collector-Cum-Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, deserve to be maintained. The allegations levelled against the appellant in inspection report have been duly proved. The matter was enquired by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, who after giving personal hearing gave his report to the District Collector, Hoshiarpur. After considering the report of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur and going through the papers the District Collector, rightly cancelled the Stamp Vendor's licence of the appellant as he violated the provisions of the Stamp Manual, 1934 referred above. There is no force in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Mr. Arihant Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that when the show cause notice was issued, no allegation was made against the petitioner that he has violated the provisions of Rule 28 (x) of the Rules and the allegation was found to be in violation of Rule 28 (xiii) (e) of the Rules. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the absence of any show cause notice and material under rule 28 (x) of the Rules, he could not be held guilty of violating the aforementioned rule. He has maintained that had violation of aforementioned rule not been mentioned by the Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, then the fate of the petitioner could have been different as he has admitted his C.W.P. No. 12167 of 2007 -3- mistake and there was neither any complaint nor any loss was caused to any one. The petitioner is stated to have admitted the non-obtaining of the signatures on his register while selling the stamp paper at Sr. Nos. 43,44,80,81,145, 146, 397, 692, 727 and 728 which have been found to be without the signatures of those persons who had purchased the stamp paper from the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Learned State counsel has however, pointed out that addition of 28(x)( in the order of Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur), looks to be an error because there is neither any material of the nature mentioned in the aforementioned Rules which is on record nor any show cause notice to that effect has been given. However, she has maintained that the allegation under Rule 28(xiii)(e) of the Rules are good enough to sustain the order passed by the Collector- cum-Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur as affirmed by Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that there is merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once the allegation emanating from violation of Rule 28(x) has been incorporated, it is possible that the consideration was adversely affected prejudicing the right of the petitioner while passing order by the Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur. The petitioner, who is a young man, has made admission with regard to non- obtaining of signatures which might be within the sweep of Rule 28(xiii) (e) of the Rules, has been probably looking for a sympathetic approach of the Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur. Therefore, we are C.W.P. No. 12167 of 2007 -4- inclined to quash the order dated 3.8.2006 (P-2) passed by the Collector- cum-Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur as well as the appellate order dated 20.6.2007 (Annexure P-3)passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. The matter is sent back to the Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur for deciding afresh in accordance with law. He shall consider the matter sympathetically. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur on 13.3.2008. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S.MANN) JUDGE February 28, 2008 paramjit