IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2291 of 2005 Harendra Prasad, Son of Late Jhagru Prasad, Resident of Mohalla Naraipur, Ward No. 9, P.S. Bagaha, District West Champaran ……. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Collector of District West Champaran at Bettiah 3. The Additional Collector – in – charge – Stamps West Champaran at Bettiah 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bagaha, West Chamapran 5. The Treasury Officer, Bettiah 6. The Stamp Deputy Collector, Bettiah, District West champaran ……. Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner : M/s Nawal Kishore Singh, J.N.Tiwary And Upendra Mishra, Advocates For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, AC to SC 14 ---------- 12 13.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 31.1.2005 passed by the Collector, West Champaran at Bettiah, whereby the licence granted to the petitioner for vending of stamps including court fee stamps, has been cancelled. It is submitted that upon the recommendation of the District Judge, the respondent 2 no. 2, i.e., the Collector, West Champaran had granted licence bearing No. 8/82-83 to the petitioner on 20.12.1982 for selling Court Stamps etc. in the premises of Civil Court, Bagaha under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Court Fee Act, 1870. Thereafter, the petitioner was continuously selling the stamps and court fee within the premises of Civil Court for about 22 years. Although there was no written complaint against the petitioner, the respondent no. 4, the Sub Divisional Officer, Bagaha had searched the residential house of the petitioner situated at Bagaha on 8.12.2003 and submitted some report to the Collector. The petitioner was directed to file a show cause vide letter dated 10.9.2004, which is appended as Annexure 5. Petitioner submitted his show cause taking several grounds. A copy thereof stands appended as Annexure 6. However, his licence has been cancelled by the impugned order as contained in Annexure 7. At the time of hearing the petitioner has confined his argument only to one issue that his show cause has not been considered and discussed at all in the impugned order as contained 3 in Annexure 7 by the Collector, West Chamapran. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 6. It has been stated therein that the petitioner has already filed an appeal bearing Stamp Appeal No. 45/2010 before the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, which is still pending. However, it has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that since no appeal lies before such authority, an application for withdrawal of the same has already been filed before the Commissioner. A copy thereof has been appended as Annexure 8 to the supplementary affidavit filed on 12.9.2011. Vide order dated 23.9.2011 this Court had directed the Commissioner to pass an appropriate order upon the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for withdrawal within three weeks. However, learned counsel for the State on the next date was not in a position to say as to whether any order has been passed or not. Then again on 9.12.2011 adjournment was granted to him to produce the necessary order passed by the Commissioner in compliance of order dated 23.9.2011. However, no such order has been produced 4 even today and again learned counsel for the State submits that he has not received any instruction. Again adjournment is being sought. This is really shocking that despite of the order passed more than three months back there is no response on behalf of the Commissioner, Trihut Division. However, in view of the fact that learned counsel for the State also agrees that there is no provision of appeal before the Commissioner, this writ application is being considered and disposed of even without waiting for such order, on the sole ground that has been raised by the petitioner as indicated above. As indicated above, it has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that his license has been cancelled vide the impugned order without consider his show cause and recording any reason. Learned counsel appearing for the State is not in a position to say that there has been any consideration of the show cause of the petitioner that stands reflected in the impugned order. Law is well settled that any order visiting consequence on the concerned person must assign 5 reason otherwise the superior authority or the Court, in case of the order being challenged, would not be in a position to know the reason which had led the authority in passing the order. The reference is made to a decision of this Court in M/s Umesh Chandra vs. The State of Bihar reported in 1999(1) BLJ 548. A Division Bench of this Court while considering the case of cancellation of licence granted for running a public distribution shop has held that the impugned order is vitiated because of non application of mind by the licensing authority. However, the Division Bench has held that even if the appellate court has discussed the matter available on record that would not cure the defect in the original order passed by the licensing authority. In this case also there is lack of even a brief discussion of the grounds raised by the petitioner in his show cause while passing the impugned order. No reason has been assigned for cancellation of licence. Thus, in the opinion of this Court the order as contained in Annexure 7 passed by the Collector, West Champran has been passed without application of mind in a mechanical manner, thus, that cannot be sustained 6 in its present form. As a result, the same is quashed and set aside and this writ application is allowed to that extent. The matter is remitted back to the Collector, West Champaran to take a fresh decision by recording a reasoned order after consideration of the show cause of the petitioner and granting him opportunity of being heard. It is also made clear that this order would not entitle the petitioner of vending the stamps and court fee automatically as the same would depend upon the decision which would be taken by the Collector, West Champaran. Since the order is passed in presence of the petitioner let the petitioner appear before the Collector, West Champaran within eight weeks along with a certified copy of this order and, thereafter, the Collector, West Champaran shall consider the case and pass necessary order within eight weeks. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)