SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. - (1.) The instant writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 16.7.2013 and 7.8.2013. By the order dated 16.7.2013, the licence of the petitioner to sell stamps was cancelled and a penalty of Rs. 500/- was also imposed and by the order dated 7.8.2013 the Review Application filed by the petitioner for reviewing the order dated 16.7.2013 was rejected.
(2.) The petitioner who was a stamp vendor received a notice on 5.7.2013 stating that he had sold some blank stamp paper to one Rajesh Kumar Saxena without entering those stamp papers in his register. To this notice, the petitioner replied that there were some stamp papers sold to Sri Rajesh Kumar Saxena in the month of July 2012 but they were all bearing the name of the petitioner and no blank stamp paper was sold. The petitioner also stated in his reply to the show cause notice that his register, in which he used to record the selling of stamp papers, had got lost on 31.12.2012 and about the loss of his register, the petitioner had informed the Police on 1.3.2013. However, after hearing the petitioner, the impugned order dated 16.7.2013 was passed in which it was found that the petitioner had violated the provisions of section 69 of the Indian Stamp Act and Rule 178 of the U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942 and his licence to sell the Stamp was cancelled. The petitioner filed a petition for the review of this order but the same was again dismissed on 7.8.2013.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the orders dated 16.7.2013 and 7.8.2013 and has stated that even though in his reply to the show cause notice dated 5.7.2013 he had very categorically stated that only such stamps which bore the names of the petitioner was sold by him yet the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Ghaziabad, District - Ghaziabad, without giving any reason held that the petitioner had accepted that he had sold certain stamp papers to Rajesh Kumar Saxena, which were blank. Learned counsel submits that when the petitioner had informed on 1.12.2013 itself that his register was stolen then he could not have shown any evidence to prove that he had entered the sale of the stamps which were allegedly sold to Sri Rajesh Kumar Saxena. Learned counsel further submitted that since there was no reason to find that the petitioner had sold blank stamp papers it could not have been held by the impugned order that the petitioner was guilty of selling blank stamp papers.;