IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 325 of 2002 Between: Ch. Purnachander Rao S/o. Pandari R/o. 9-11-48, Prabhat Talkies Road, Khammam, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner & Inspector General of Stamps & Registration, Near Exhibition Grounds, M.J.Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Inspector General of Registration & Stamps, Circut House, Hanumakonda, Warangal. 3 The District Registrar of Assurances (Licensing Authority), Khammam. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MEHERCHAND NORI Counsel for the respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Certiorari to quash proceedings dated 17-07-1999 of respondent No.2. The petitioner was granted a licence by respondent No.3 on 16-09-1985 to vend all stamps prescribed by the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 not exceeding Rs.500/- each in value and Rs.5,000/- for a single individual at a time. The said licence was renewed from time to time, the last of which was in the year 1996. In the year 1990, the petitioner was prosecuted vide criminal case in C.C.No.204 of 1990 for the oﬀences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 472 and 473 IPC on the ﬁle of the I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam. In the said criminal case, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges under Sections 420 and 471 IPC, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a ﬁne of Rs.2,000/- for the oﬀence under Section 420 IPC, and to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a ﬁne of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the oﬀence under Section 471 IPC, with both the sentences to run concurrently. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.65 of 1994 against the said judgment in the Sessions Court, Khammam. By judgment dated 15-06-1994, the conviction against the petitioner was set aside and appeal ﬁled by the State against the said judgment was dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 09-08-1995. During the pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner’s licence expired. He approached respondent No.3 for renewal of his licence. The said application having been rejected by respondent No.3, the petitioner ﬁled appeal before respondent No.2, who by his order dated 17-07-1999, which is impugned in this writ petition, dismissed the appeal. In his order, respondent No.2 observed that respondent No.3 rejected the petitioner’s application for renewal on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case and though this Court dismissed the criminal appeal ﬁled by the State, the petitioner applied for renewal after a lapse of six years. He further observed that as the petitioner was prosecuted in a criminal case, which ended in his acquittal on beneﬁt of doubt, he did not ﬁnd any ground to interfere with the view taken by respondent No.3. At the hearing, Sri Meherchand Nori, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that as the petitioner was acquitted by the appellate Court, which was conﬁrmed by this Court, there is no justification for rejecting his application for renewal. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that as the petitioner was involved in a serious criminal case and faced serious charges in connection with his functioning as stamp vendor, respondents 2 and 3 used their discretion and for valid reasons rejected the petitioner’s application for renewal and that therefore, the said orders are not liable for interference. I have carefully considered the submissions of the respective counsel. Grant and renewal of stamp vendor’s licence are covered by the Standing Orders. Standing Order 780 (d) envisages that it is not mandatory to issue a licence to old and lapsed licensees and their applications can be treated as fresh and can be disposed of along with other applications for the same area. This clause clearly suggests that a licensee has no vested right for renewal and his application for renewal will be treated as application for a fresh licence. In the instant case, the petitioner faced serious charges for various oﬀences, including the oﬀences under Sections 420 and 471 IPC. As noted above, he was convicted by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class and sentenced to undergo three years’ imprisonment. However, the appellate Court set aside the said conviction and acquitted the petitioner by giving him benefit of doubt. Thus, it is not a case of honourable acquittal. The functions of a stamp vendor being connected with ﬁnancial dealings, the State is required to entrust these functions to persons with clean track record and impeccable integrity. A person, who faced serious criminal charges and got acquittal by the appellate Court on beneﬁt of doubt, cannot claim to possess such qualities. Therefore, I do not ﬁnd any unreasonableness and irrationality in both respondents 2 and 3 not reposing conﬁdence in a person such as the petitioner. As the petitioner does not have any vested right for renewal, and rejection of his application for renewal is based on sound and valid reasons, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by respondents 2 and 3. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 29th September, 2008 vrn