Sinha, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed by Sri Abdul Salam praying that the order dated 8th July, 1971 and order dated 16th August, 1971 passed by the opposite party No. 1 be quashed.
(2.) THE petitioner held a licence for selling stamp in the Civil Court compound, Pratapgarh, since 1963. On 28th April, 1971, the Inspector of Stamp and Registration, made inspection of the office of the Sub- Registrar, Pratapgarh and found that the petitioner had sold stamps worth Rs. 90/- to Shri Shital Prasad Singh for executing a sale-deed in favour of Shri Dwarika Singh in respect of some land. THE numbers of these stamps, their denominations and date on which they were purported to have been sold were as follows : 1. 132 Value 25/- Dated 26-9-1970 2. 133 Value 25/- Dated 27-9-1970 Alue 25/- Dated 28-9-1970 Alue 15/- Dated 29-9-1970 3. Similarly on 3-10-1970, the petitioner sold stamps worth Rs. 90/- again to Shri Shital Prasad Singh for executing another sale-deed in favour of Dwarika Singh. The particulars of these stamps were as follows :- 1. 136 VAlue 25/- Dated 30-9-1970 2. 137 VAlue 25/- Dated 1-10-1970 3. 138 VAlue 25/- Dated 2-10-1970 4. 139 VAlue 25/- (sic) (15?) Dated 3-10-1970 4. According to the terms of the licence granted to Abdul Salam, he could not sell stamps worth more than Rs. 25/- on any date. The Inspector of Stamp and Registration suspected that the four stamps, on which the sale-deed dated 29th September, 1970 was scribed were sold on one and the same date and similarly the four stamps, on which the sale-deed dated 3rd October, 1970 was scribed, were also sold on a single day and, since it constituted violation of his condition of licence, the petitioner wrongly had shown those stamps to have been sold on different dates. The Inspector of Stamp and Registration accordingly, made a report to the Dy. Commissioner, Pratapgarh for inquiry into the matter.
(3.) THE Deputy Commissioner, Pratapgarh forwarded the report of the Inspector of Stamp and Registration to the District Stamp Officer for inquiry. THE District Stamp Officer issued a notice to the petitioner to appear before him with all the papers on 17th June, 1971. Having heard the petitioner and having examined his papers, the District Stamp Officer submitted a report to the Dy. Commissioner stating that in his opinion all the four stamps on which the sale-deed dated 29th September, 1970 was scribed were sold on the same date, similarly all the four stamps on which the sale-deed dated 3rd October, 1970 was scribed were sold on one and the same date, and that Abdul Salam thus violated the condition of his licence. THE Deputy Commissioner concurred with the findings of the District Stamp Officer and in the result, cancelled the licence of the petitioner by his order dated 8th July, 1971. THE petitioner then submitted a representation dated 23rd July, 1971 to the Deputy Commissioner wherein he said that his licence had been cancelled without show cause opportunity having been given to him. This was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner vide his order dated 16th August, 1971. THE petitioner, by the present writ petition, has challenged both the orders viz. order dated 8th July, 1971 as also that passed on 16th August, 1971. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before us was that the petitioner was granted a licence under the statutory rules framed under the Indian Stamp Act and, consequently, the licence granted to him could not be cancelled without a proper show cause opportunity having been granted to him. The learned counsel pointed out that even though the petitioner was summoned through a notice to appear before the District Stamp Officer on 16th June, 1971 along with his papers, he was neither given any copy of the report submitted by the Inspector of Stamp and Registration nor was he told that the accusation against him was that even though he had shown to have sold the eight stamps in eight different dates, he had sold four of them on one day and the remaining four on another day, and had thus committed breach of the conditions subject to which the licence was granted to him.;