B.K. Roy, Pramod Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 23.12.1992 passed by the District Stamp Officer, Bijnor (Respondent No. 1) as contained in Annexure -3 cancelling his licence granted under the Indian Stamps Act. A further prayer has been made to command the respondents not to restrain him from selling stamps pursuant to the impugned order aforementioned. On 09.04.1998 having heard learned counsel for the parties this Court had passed the following order: - - The submission of Sri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the licence of the petitioner under the Indian Stamps Act has been cancelled on a ground that he has sold out fictitious/forged stamps but without giving him any opportunity of hearing and accordingly the principles of natural justice have been blatantly violated. Sri Yadav, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended that the licence of the petitioner, which was granted on 6.3.1978 and which was renewed upto 31.3.1992 but as five years period having elapsed since 31.3.1992, this writ petition has become infructuous. He further contended that even assuming that principles of natural justice have been violated, in view of the findings recorded on merit this Court need not exercise its discretionary powers in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Sharma in reply takes up a stand that since the impugned order will cast a stigma on the conduct of the petitioner and which will stand against him in obtaining further licence under the Act, the issue raised by him requires adjudication on merit by this Court. Even though this writ petition has remained pending for more than five years by now, no counter has been filed by the respondents. We give them last indulgence to file a counter adjourning this case to Monday dated 4.5.1998 clarifying that the Court intends to dispose of this writ petition on its merit at the admission stage itself on that date. A copy of the proposed counter must be served on Sri Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner by 30.4.1998. The office is directed to hand over a copy of this order to Sri Yadav, learned Standing Counsel within three days for its communication to the appropriate authority which will also produce the entire original records for perusal of the Court. Sd/ - Binod Kumar Roy, J.Sd/ - B.K. Sharma, J.
(2.) EVEN though we had granted adjournment to the learned Standing Counsel on 06.05.1998 on the ground that the records have not been handed over to him by the Office of the Advocate General again a prayer for adjournment has been made on the ground that instructions have not been received. For the reasons already stated as above it is not possible to grant adjournment. Accordingly, we proceed to dispose of this writ petition on its merit. We find substance in the contention of learned counsel Mr. Sharma already noted in the order dated 9.4.1998. Accordingly, we direct Respondent No. 1 to hear the matter afresh and for that purpose we direct the petitioner to appear before Respondent No. 1 on Monday dated June 15, 1998 who shall pass orders afresh.
(3.) HOWEVER , in regard to the second relief we are of the view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances we refuse to exercise our discretion.;