IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 5258 of 2006(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.P.DINESH LAL, KAKKA POYIL, SWARAJ BHAVAN, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHARAM.P RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), KOZHIKODE. 3. THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI V.TECHCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Appendix Petitioner's Exhibits:- P1: Statement of experience P2: True copy of notification dated 8-5-2002 P3: True copy of interview card dated 27-10-05 P4: True copy of the proceedings of 1st respondent dated 17-1-2006 P5: True copy of application by the petitioner to get the copies dated 10-2- 2006. P6: True copy of the certificate dated 16-2-2006 issued by the Village Officer, Panthalayani P7: True copy of application dated 20-2-2008 Respondents' Exhibits:- R1(a): True copy of the circular No.16490/E2/2000/T.D dated 12-2-2001 of Tax Dept. R3(a): True copy of the letter dated 16-1-2006 P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.5258 OF 2006 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved of the condition No.3 stipulated in Ext.P4 order passed by the first respondent, whereby the petitioner was directed to effect a security deposit of Rs.2.5 Lakhs, either by way of National Savings Certificate or by way of Treasury Fixed Deposit in tune with the circular number 16490/E2/2000/Taxes Department dated 12.02.2001, as a condition in connection with the selection and appointment of the petitioner as a Stamp Vendor. 2. Father of the petitioner was the 'Koyilandi Nagaram Stamp Vendor' since 1972 and after his demise in the year 2000, the petitioner has been working as 'acting stamp vendor' for different spells, particularly when there was no permanent Nagaram stamp vendor. Subsequently, in response to Ext.P2 notification to fill up the vacancy of the permanent stamp vendor, the petitioner W.P.(C) No.5258 of 2006 2 submitted application and on coming out successful in the selection process, he was appointed as the stamp vendor as per Ext.P4 proceedings issued by the first respondent. However, as a condition for issuance of the licence, it was stipulated in Ext.P4 that the petitioner had to furnish a security deposit of Rs.2.5 Lakhs as mentioned herein before, which is under challenge in the present proceedings. 3. The case of the petitioner is that there is absolutely no nexus or rationale in imposing such a condition, casting a very unreasonable burden on the shoulders of the person selected, particularly when there is no such stipulation under the Act or Rules. The petitioner further submits that nature of the duty and the scope of appointment would clearly reveal that the stamp vendors would get the stamp papers from the concerned treasury, only after remitting the requisite amount as the stamp value and as such, the observation contained in the circular dated 12.02.2001 that sufficient financial base is necessary for performing the W.P.(C) No.5258 of 2006 3 duties as stamp vendor is not having any meaning or significance. More so, when such amount is directed to be deposited by way of National Savings or as per permanent Treasury Deposit, thus making the said amount not available for the day to day business involving the purchase and sale of stamp papers. 4. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit seeking to sustain the stipulation contained under condition No.3 of Ext.P4, stating that the only grievance of the petitioner projected in Ext.R3(a) representation filed before the third respondent was to grant a further period of 15 days to remit the said deposit of Rs.2.5 Lakhs and that no challenge was raised against the stipulation contained in Ext.P4 or such other aspects. When the matter had come up for consideration before this court on 14.02.2006, ie, after filing said counter affidavit, this court had directed the respondents to substantiate the statutory backing for the stipulation as contained in the circular dated 12.02.2001. Though two years are already over, no such explanation has W.P.(C) No.5258 of 2006 4 been offered from the part of the respondents and no reference is made to any provision under the Act or Rules enabling the Government or the department or any other respondents to impose any such condition; particularly when the petitioner has got a contention that the maximum amount which could have been prescribed as cash security could only be Rs.200/-. 5. Before going further into the merits of the case, it is to be noted that the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the above circular, without which this court is not in a position to pass any positive order in favour of the petitioner. More so when the petitioner has not chosen to implead the State Government or the concerned department who issued the said circular [produced as Ext.R1(a) along with the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent] as a party to the present writ petition. It is also seen that the petitioner has not approached the higher authorities or the Government for redressal of his grievance, but for filing Ext.P7 dated 20.02.2008 before the third respondent W.P.(C) No.5258 of 2006 5 seeking for issuance of licence. 6. When the matter had come up for admission before this court, an interim order was passed on 27.02.2006 staying the cancellation of the appointment for non- compliance of the direction to effect the security deposit. However, it was also mentioned in the said interim order that the licence need not be issued. In view of the above prohibitory order issued by this court, the third respondent was also not in a position to consider Ext.P7 representation for granting the licence, pursuant to the appointment. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the relevant rules regarding the appointment of the stamp vendor have undergone substantial changes after issuance of Ext.R1(a) circular dated 12.02.2001. It is also submitted that even after the above amendment brought into effect from 13.02.2003, the rule making authority has not imposed any such condition or stipulation as contained in Ext.R1(a) circular, casting a huge burden upon the stamp vendors to effect a security deposit as W.P.(C) No.5258 of 2006 6 involved in the instant case. This being the position, especially when the respondents have not offered any explanation as to the statutory backing for the circular dated 12.02.2001 despite the specific direction given by this court on 14.02.2006, the matter requires to be re- considered by the committee headed by the first respondent who selected the petitioner. 8. In the above circumstances, the first respondent is hereby directed to reconsider the matter with regard to the imposition of furnishing the security of Rs.2.5 Lakhs as contained in Clause 3 of Ext.P4, in the light of the above observations and with specific reference to the relevant Rules, in support of the Circular dated 12.02.2001 as aforesaid. It is made clear that the selection and appointment of the petitioner (cancellation of which was intercepted by this court as per interim order dated 27.02.2006) will stand intact and the re-consideration shall only be with regard to the burden to furnish the security deposit. Proceedings in this regard shall be finalised as W.P.(C) No.5258 of 2006 7 expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Meanwhile, it will be open for the third respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for permitting him to function as 'temporary stamp vendor', pending finalisation of the proceedings as above. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE pac