SSK/ 1 WP/1032.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1032 OF 2011 Vijay S/o. Kashinath Sharma ....Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Shri S. S. Dube, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Niranjan Pandit, AGP for the State. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & RANJIT MORE, JJ. DATED : 12th JULY, 2011. P.C.: In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed that a direction be given to the respondents to transfer License No.248/8789/08 which is standing in the name of his wife to his name. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to reimburse to him an amount of Rs.56,266/- along with interest @18% p.a. from the date of seizure and repossession of the stamp papers being the amount of Rs.21,316/- being the value of stamp papers seized and repossessed on 5th July, 2002 and the amount of Rs.34,950/- being the value of stamp papers seized and repossessed on 13th August, 2004. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. We have also heard learned counsel for the respondents. We have SSK/ 2 WP/1032.11 been taken through the affidavit of Mr.Manoj Prabhakar Wavikar, Superintendent of Stamps(H.Q.), Mumbai, representative of Additional Controller of Stamps. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the license in question stands in the name of his wife. His wife is dead, and therefore, the license should be transferred to his name. The petitioner has cited three instances in paragraph 11 of the petition where the licenses have been transferred to the relatives of the license holder. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that a case is made out for transfer of the license. On the other hand Mr. Pandit, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a policy decision has been taken not to transfer licenses. This is reflected in paragraph no.3 of the affidavit of Mr.Manoj Prabhakar Wavikar, Superintendent of Stamps (H.Q.) Mumbai, representative of Additional Controller of Stamps. Mr. Pandit stated that this policy decision is taken after the stamp papers scam came to light. We deem it appropriate to quote paragraph 3 of the affidavit of Mr.Manoj Prabhakar Wavikar. It reads thus : “3. The petitioner’s application for transfer of his wife’s license to his name has been refused/rejected because as per the provisions of the Bombay Stamps Supply and Sales Rules, 1934, there is no provision for transfer of vendors license. Government has also taken a policy decision dated 2.4.2005 that henceforth no new stamp vendors license be granted. This policy of April, SSK/ 3 WP/1032.11 2005 was necessitated in public interest and in view of fake stamp papers and stamps being circulated and distributed in public. It was felt necessary to reduce the number of private stamp vendors and instead allow stamp papers to be dispensed and sold through Post Offices and Banks, including by Franking. This was done only in public interest and to prevent loss to the public in general and also to the State’s exchequer. In these circumstances, the petitioner was conveyed of the rejection of his application. The petitioner has falsely alleged that the Government had even thereafter transferred licenses from the existing license holder to their heirs. In this context, the petitioner in paragraph 11 has given 3 instances.” 4. So far as the cases cited by the petitioner are concerned, it appears from the affidavit that in cases of Smt. Kavita Bhosale and Shri Manish Rampure, the license was transferred prior to the policy decision dated 2nd April, 2005. The petitioner, therefore, cannot draw any support from the said cases. So far as transfer of license of Shri Daulat Madanani is concerned, in paragraph no.5 of the said affidavit, explanation has been offered. It is stated that at the relevant time, there were three stamp vendors in and around the premises of Borivali Court. The licenses of two stamp vendors were cancelled and the third stamp vendor surrendered his license which he had in the Borivali Court premises. This caused great SSK/ 4 WP/1032.11 hardship to the litigants and advocates and there was a demand and an application was made by the Borivali Court Bar Association for providing a stamp vendor for making a provision for selling of stamps and stamp papers in and around the Borivali Court. Since, Daulat Madnani was the only existing stamp vendor left in the nearby area at Andheri, and on account of old age, he had applied for transfer of his licence to his son’s name, the transfer was permitted. Mr. Pandit informs us that even Andheri Court Bar Association had made a request. Thus, it appears to us that so far as Daulat Madnani’s case is concerned, it stands on a different footing. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder in which he has stated that in fact there are five stamp vendors licenses in the concerned area and he is, therefore, disputing the respondents’ stand. It is not possible for us to go into this disputed question of fact. Since a statement is made on oath by Mr.Manoj Prabhakar Wavikar, Superintendent of Stamps (H.Q.) Mumbai, representative of Additional Controller of Stamps that a policy decision is taken not to transfer any license and considering the fact that this decision was taken when huge stamp paper scam was unearthed by the Bombay Police, it is not possible for us to tamper with the policy decision. In the circumstances, we are unable to give direction to the respondents to transfer the license of the petitioner’s dead wife to the petitioner’s name. This prayer is rejected. The respondents are expected to strictly abide by the policy decision and treat all citizens equally. 5. It appears that earlier the license which stood in the name of petitioner’s wife was cancelled on 13th August, 2004. The petitioner’s wife SSK/ 5 WP/1032.11 filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the cancellation and this Court restored the license on 3rd March, 2005. At the time when the license was cancelled, according to the petitioner, respondent no.2 had re-possessed stamp papers valued at Rs.34,950/-. After restoration of the license, the petitioner had applied for refund of that amount. That request has been rejected vide letter dated 12th November, 2009 on the ground that the application was not made within the period prescribed under the Bombay Stamps Supply and Sale Rules, 1934. Rule 23 of the said Rules states that ordinarily such an application should be made within a period of six months from the date of resignation, or date of death of the licensed vendor or date of revocation of the license. In this case, the license was cancelled on 13th August, 2004, therefore, the application ought to have been made before February, 2004. However, application was made on 22nd August, 2005. Proviso to Rule 23 also gives discretion to the respondents to grant refund of the amount in special cases. It states that the Sanctioning Authority may accept an application made within two years in special cases. In this case, after the license was cancelled on 13th August, 2004, the petitioner’s wife had filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation and she was prosecuting it. In these circumstances, the application was not made within six months. In any case, it was made within two years from the date of cancellation of the license. This was indeed a fit case where the delay should have been condoned, discretion should have been exercised and money should have been refunded. There is some dispute about the amount. Earlier the petitioner had claimed that he is entitled to an amount of Rs.32,900/-. Later on he has claimed an amount of Rs.34,900/-. It is the SSK/ 6 WP/1032.11 case of the respondent that the petitioner is entitled to Rs.32,900/-. In the circumstances of the case, in our opinion, a direction needs to be issued to the respondents to refund to the petitioner the amount of Rs.32,900/- within a period of one month from the receipt of a copy of this order. Order accordingly. 6. So far as the other claim of the petitioner for the sum of Rs.21,316/- is concerned, we find that stamp papers were seized from the petitioner by a general order after Telgi scam was detected. In paragraph 7 of the affidavit, it is stated that stamp papers were re-possessed for verification. They were sent to India Security Printing Press, Nashik to ascertain whether they are genuine or fake stamp papers. It is further stated that the petitioner’s application in respect of refund is pending and on receipt of a report from the India Security Press, it will be processed further. The petitioner’s application is dated 22nd August, 2005. We fail to understand as to why the India Security Printing Press, Nashik has till date not verified the stamp papers which were seized from the petitioner. The amount of Rs.21,316/- being value of the said stamp papers is, therefore, stated to be lying with the respondents, which the respondents must refund to the petitioner in case the stamp papers are found to be genuine. We, therefore, direct the India Security Printing Press, Nashik to verify whether the stamp papers seized from the petitioner are genuine or not as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order by it. On receipt of the report, the respondents must process the petitioners pending application within one SSK/ 7 WP/1032.11 month. Needless to say that if the said stamp papers are found to be genuine and are of the value of Rs.21,316/- that amount will have to be refunded to the petitioner with 6% interest thereon for the relevant period. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (RANJIT MORE, J.) (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)