(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 9523 OF 2010 Javed s/o. Khurshid Shaikh, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Bond Writer, R/o. Gulabi, Balikashram Road, At Post and Dist. : Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Revenue Ministry, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. Inspector General of Registration & Controller of Stamps, Maharashtra State, New Administrative Building, Pune - 1. 3. District Registrar / Collector of Stamps, District Registrar Office, Ahmednagar, District : Ahmednagar. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. R.F. Totla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 5TH JANUARY 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 23rd September 2010, passed by respondent no.3, thereby canceling the licence of the petitioner as Bond Writer. 3. Mr. R.F. Totla, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised two contentions. The first contention is that there is no power, either in Act or in Rules to suspend the licence or to cancel it. He further states that even if it is presumed that as the authority has granted licence, it has got such power, the (3) power to suspend cannot still be inferred. In the alternative and without prejudice, he has further urged that the consideration by the Collector of Stamps, in the impugned order dated 23-9-2010 reveals non-application of mind to these aspects and also to facts. According to him, the most serious misconduct, if proved, can be taken to be the complaint by M.L.A., Shri Rathod, and the less payment of stamp duty is not on account of any manipulation in the documents drafted by the petitioner. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, therefore, urges that the punishment of cancellation of licence is too harsh and cannot be sustained. 4. Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, supports the impugned order. He has invited my attention to the observations in the impugned order, to urge that allegations of serious type of misconduct are proved and hence, this Court should not interfere in the matter as quantum of punishment is within the discretion of the authority. 5. I have perused the impugned order. The impugned order, in its paragraph 5, reproduces the contentions and then observations are recorded on four counts, which reveal consideration of complaints made by some individuals like, (4) M.L.A., Shri Rathod, one Advocate, Shri Shamsundar Asava, one Shri Shakirbhai and Shri Y.B. Jahagirdar, and Advocate, Shri Bhausaheb Nawale. The consideration, however, is not self- explanatory, inasmuch as, how the petitioner contributed and how his role resulted in misconduct is not apparent. Mere less recovery of stamp duty, by itself, cannot be a misconduct. 6. In this view of the matter, I find that the punishment of most severe type is being imposed upon the petitioner / Bond Writer and there is no discussion about any past record. It would, therefore, be proper to direct the respondent no.3 to re- consider the entire aspect, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The authority shall go into each act of misconduct of the petitioner so as to determine whether there was any manipulation of records and recourse to similar practices. 7. In the result, Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23rd September 2010, passed by the respondent no.3, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent no.3, for taking a fresh decision, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made herein above, at the earliest. (5) 8. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp9523