IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2008 / 16TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 13482 of 2004(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C.GOPALAN, ARUNTHATHEE VILASOM, MANAKAD,VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN SRI.P.A.NOOR MUHAMMED SRI.CHARLES VARGHESE RESPONDENT: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES(E) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.R.SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.13482 of 2004 ================== Dated this the 7th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a licensed stamp vendor operating within the limits of Sub Registrar's Office, Eravipuram in Kollam District. In this writ petition he is challenging the validity of amended Rules 35(2) and 35(8) of the Kerala Manufacture and Sale of Stamp (Amendment) Rules, 2003, which was notified on 7.2.2003. Before amendment, Rule 35 read thus: “35. The Sale of stamps shall be made by the treasuries as ex- officio Stamp Vendors and by licences stamp vendors appointed by the Tahasildars. The Junior Superintendent and the Accountant, Central Stamp Depot, Trivandrum shall be Ex-officio Vendors in respect of the documents embossed and returned to the parties under rule 16. The District Collector shall determine the number of Stamp Vendors licences required in any area in his District after examining the necessity. The Tahasildars shall get the permission of the District Collector, to issue additional licences in an area or to transfer a [sic.] licences from an area to another. An appeal shall lie to Revenue Divisional Officer against any Order passed by the Tahasildar under this rule or any order passed by the Tahasildar revoking a licence under rule 37. The District Collector may on application or suo motu revise any order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Tahasildar shall be competent to grant leave to licenced Stamp Vendors without limit of time. He is also competent to fill up temporary vacancies caused by the grant of such leave and to grant licence for the sale of stamps to substitute appointed by him in such cases. “ Thereafter, by G.O(P).No.23/2003 T.D. Dated 7.2.2003, the w.p.c.13482/04 2 same was amended as follows: “35. (1) The sale of stamps shall be made by the Treasurers as ex-officio Stamp Vendors and by licensed stamp vendors appointed by a District Committee consisting of the District Collector, the District Registrar (General) and the District Treasury Officer as members. The licence will be issued by the District Treasury Officer to such vendors so appointed on the basis of the report of the District Committee. (2) No person shall be eligible for stamp vendors licence if he has not completed the age of 18 years or has completed the age of 60 years and has not passed the S.S.L.C. Examination. (3) The Junior Superintendent and the Accountant, Central Stamp Depot, Thiruvananthapuram, shall be ex-officio vendors in respect of the documents embossed and returned to the parties under rule 16. (4) The District Collector shall determine the number of Stamp Vendors licensees required in any area in his district after examining the necessity. (5) The District Treasury Officer shall get the permission of the District Collector to transfer a licence from one area to another. (6) An appeal shall lie to the Director of Treasuries against any order passed by the District Treasury Officer under this rule or against any order passed by the District Treasury Officer revoking a licence under rule 37. (7) The District Treasury Officer shall be Competent to grant leave to the licensed Stamp Vendors without limit of time and also to fill up the temporary vacancies caused by the grant of such leave and to grant licence for the sale of stamps to substitutes appointed by him in such cases. (8) The Stamp Vendor's Licence issued shall be valid for a period of 3 years and after the expiry of the said period the licensee shall apply for licence afresh. (9) The Stamp Vendors' Office shall function from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on all days except Sundays and Public holidays.” (underlining supplied) w.p.c.13482/04 3 Out of the above, the petitioner is challenging the validity of Rules 35(2) and 35(8). 2. As far as Rule 35(2) is concerned, the petitioner would contend that the Government has no power to fix an upper age limit for continuing as a licensed stamp vendor. In support of his contention, he relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in B.P.SHARMA V. UNION OF INDIA [2003(7) SCC 309] in the case of tourist guides, wherein the Supreme Court held that fixation of upper age limit to work as tourist guides is violative of the fundamental rights of a citizen under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, ratio of that decision applies to the work as a stamp vendor also. Regarding Rule 35(8) he would submit that the Government cannot change the procedure for grant of stamp vendors' licence limiting the same for a period of three years and providing that after the expiry of the said period, the licensee shall apply for licence afresh. According to him, formerly there was no such restriction which restriction would interfere with the fundamental rights of the petitioner in so far the same is arbitrary and unreasonable. 3. The learned Government Pleader would oppose the w.p.c.13482/04 4 contentions. According to him, there is no question of violation of any fundamental right since the petitioner has no fundamental right to be a stamp vendor. This is not a self employment as in the case of tourist guides where the role of the Government is only regulatory. In so far as stamp vending is concerned, the relationship between the Government and the stamp vendors is one of principal and agent and it is for the principal to lay down conditions for sale of stamps which cannot be challenged by the agent in any manner. The question of violation of fundamental rights does not arise and the only right the petitioner has is to have his application for licence considered in accordance with the Rules and nothing more than that. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader the relationship between the petitioner and the stamp vendor is that of a principal and agent. The Government entrusts stamp papers, stamps, court fee stamps etc. to the stamp vendor for sale, who has to sell the same to persons who want them and remit the sale proceeds to the Government after deducting a rebate which is the remuneration of the stamp vendor. This is w.p.c.13482/04 5 purely a contractual relationship between the Government and the stamp vendor and the Rules are only to enable the principal to regulate the transaction in an orderly manner. Of course being an action of the Government, such rules cannot be arbitrary and unreasonable. I do not think that fixing an upper age limit of 60 years for continuing as a stamp vendor is in any way unreasonable or arbitrary. One can find umpteen reasons as to why a person beyond the age of 60 years cannot be entrusted with very valuable stamp papers especially at a time when there are widespread allegations of misuse of stamp papers for indulging in illegal sale transactions of properties. In fact of late there are widespread allegations of illegal activities by land mafias in land dealings in the State. Therefore, I do not find anything discriminatory, unreasonable or unconstitutional in Rule 35(2). 6. As far as Rule 35(8) is concerned, I do not think that the Government has brought in anything new. According to me, the amended rule is more favourable to a stamp vendor. Formerly, the form prescribed for issue of licence for a specified period. That specified period could have been fixed by the w.p.c.13482/04 6 licensing authority as he pleased. That has been done away and now it has been made compulsory that the licence issued should be valid for a period of three years and after expiry of the said period, the licensee has to apply for licence afresh. Therefore, Rule 35(8) is not arbitrary, unreasonable or unconstitutional. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge