IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No: 17845 of 2008 BETWEEN: Vakkalagadda Vithal Rao S/o. Govind Rao, R/o. H.No. 26-15-5, Vundavallivari Street, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Inspector General of Stamps & Registration Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 District Registrar, Krishna, Vijayawada. 3 Joint Sub Registrar LI, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada. 4 Divisional Treasury Officer, East Gandhinagar, Vijayawada. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in withholding the stock and sale registers of the petitioner and the action of the 1st to 3rd respondents in not issuing frankling machine and also the action of the 4th Respondent in not issuing the indent placed by the petitioner as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith release the stock and sale registers of the petitioner and issue the indent made by the petitioner and also issue flankling machine to the petitioner and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.E.V.S.S.ACHARYULU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner is a stamp vendor. He has approached this Court questioning the action of the respondents in withholding the stock and sales register and not issuing indent and franking machine. The allegations in the affidavit in support of the writ petition shows that the petitioner is a stamp vendor with licence bearing No.6 of 1983 dated 09.08.1983 and that in the last 25 years he has been rendering unblemished services and his licence is valid up to 31.12.2010. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. It is contended that for verification of stock and sales register when they were submitted to the respondents, they have not been returned by the respondents in spite of number of requests. It is also alleged that the petitioner has made an application for issue of franking machine and for that purpose, he has submitted the requisite indemnity bond on 23.11.2007 itself but the respondents have not considered the same. Questioning the said inaction the writ petition is filed. 4. This Court issued notice before admission on 18.08.2008 and thereafter the matter was adjourned on two or three occasions, then the respondents have filed their counter affidavit. It is now submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of this writ petition the respondents have released the stock register to the petitioner and that there is no subsisting grievance in that regard. The only contention now raised by the learned counsel is that the petitioner’s request for issuing franking machine is still not being considered by the respondents. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the indemnity bond said to have been furnished by him, as required, as early as on 23.11.2007. The copy of the said indemnity bond dated 07.12.2007 is produced along with the material papers at page 16. It is evident wherefrom that the petitioner undertakes to pay all charges and stamp duty relevant for the machine as the said machine would be useful for carrying on the business as stamp vendor. According to the petitioner, therefore, he has fulfilled all the requirements for getting the said franking machine. The respondents, however, have not referred to the said aspect in their counter affidavit. 5. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for release of franking machine to him subject to fulfilling all the requirements under the relevant rules and taking into consideration the fact that he has already submitted undertaking and indemnity bond as referred to above. Since the said aspect is pending consideration of the respondents for last more than a year, it is desirable that the said exercise be completed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J April 30, 2009 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 02.05.2009 (B/o) DSK