IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2010 / 9TH MAGHA 1931 OP.No. 19080 of 2001(U) ----------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- PRABHULLA.K., STAMP VENDOR(LICENCE No.V.L.2/90), KOZHIPURATH HOUSE, THATHAPILLY P.O., MANNAM-VIA, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY MR.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER, ALUVA. BY SMT.M.R.SREELATHA,GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.No.19080/2001 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LICENCE BEARING NO.V.L.2/90 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.109/76/99/G2 DTD.27.10.99 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 27.1.2000 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDING No.F2.1668/2000 DTD. 22.4.2000 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPODNENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 24.10.2000 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.15.12.2000 No.A2-64026/99 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE RECEIPT No.1527 DTD.7.2.2001 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.30.2.2001 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.1.3.2001 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF G.O.(M.S) No.98/2000 DATED 21.6.2000 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE PROCEEDING No.K.DIS.31761/03/A2 DATED 23.6.2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE S.SIRI JAGAN,J ========================= O.P.No.19080 of 2001 ========================== Dated this the 29th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was the holder of a stamp vendor's licence bearing No.V.L.2/90 issued by the 3rd respondent. While holding that licence, the petitioner wanted to join her husband abroad and for that purpose the petitioner submitted an application before the 3rd respondent on 13.10.99 requesting for sanction of leave for five years. By Ext.P2 order dated 27.10.99, the petitioner was granted leave for one year with effect from 1.11.99. According to the petitioner, although she was on leave from 1.11.99, she submitted an application dated 27.1.2000, before the 3rd respondent for renewal of her licence. Petitioner submits that on receipt of Ext.P3 application for renewal of licence, under cover of Ext.P4, the 3rd respondent forwarded the same to the second respondent for appropriate action. In the meanwhile, the petitioner came to understand that for renewal of licence, a fee of Rs.500/- has to be remitted. Thereafter, the petitioner claims to have remitted the amount of Rs.500/- as renewal fee. The petitioner also submitted Ext.P5 representation O.P.No.19080/2001 2 dated 24.10.2000. While so, in response of Ext.P4 proceedings, the second respondent by Ext.P6 directed the 4th respondent to initiate appropriate proceedings for renewing the licence of the petitioner. Ext.P7 is the receipt issued from the office of the 5th respondent for payment of the renewal fee. Again the petitioner filed another representation-Ext.P8 requesting the 4th respondent to expedite the procedures for renewal of petitioner's vendor's licence. Petitioner again submitted Ext.P9 representation on 01.03.2001. The petitioner has filed this original petition since no steps have been taken to renew the petitioner's licence. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 4th respondent wherein the contention taken is that by G.O.(RT) 850/2000/Taxes dated 6.12.2000, the stamp vendors licences are to be renewed from year to year. Pursuant to that, the time for submission of application for renewal of vendors' licences for the year 2000-01 was extended up to 31.12.2000. The 4th respondent contends that petitioner has not submitted an application for renewal of licence till 31.12.2000. But it is admitted that on 07.02.2001, the petitioner had remitted an O.P.No.19080/2001 3 amount of Rs.500/- towards renewal fee. The learned Government Pleader takes another contention that an order rejecting petitioner's application for renewal of licence was issued to the petitioner as is clear from Ext.P7 representation of the petitioner itself, which the petitioner has not cared to challenge and without challenging the same the petitioner cannot be granted the relief prayed for in this original petition. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Of course, in view of Ext.P4, I cannot accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader that an application for renewal of licence was not received from the petitioner before 31.12.2000 since Ext.P4 dated 22.4.2000 and it refers to an application from the petitioner for renewal. But the licence fee was remitted only on 7.2.2001. Moreover, I find considerable merit in the contention of the learned Government Pleader regarding the failure on the part of the petitioner to challenge the order rejecting the petitioner's application for renewal. Ext.P9 is admittedly a representation filed by the petitioner before the Principal Secretary, Tax (E) Department. The penultimate paragraph of the same reads thus: O.P.No.19080/2001 4 4. The same specifically refers to receipt by the petitioner of an order holding that the petitioner is not entitled to get the licence renewed. Admittedly, the petitioner has not cared to challenge the same. Without challenging the same petitioner cannot seek the reliefs prayed in this original petition. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner who has not done what she ought to have done at the right time. Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE dvs