- (1.) The order in challenge is the decision of the Financial Commissioner, Faridabad Division affirming the cancellation of authority to vend stamps under the Punjab Stamp Rules. The decision of the Financial Commissioner was affirmation of the decision taken by the Deputy Commissioner exercising the power of the Collector through his order dated 22.4.2010. This order was a reversal of his own decision made on 23.11.2009 affording to the petitioner an approval to do the work on stamp vending in addition to his own work as a licensed deed writer.
(2.) There is no dispute on the issue that under Punjab Vasika Nawees Rules, 1961, a licensed deed writer may be authorized to do "other work" with the permission of the Inspector General of Registration. This permission was reported to have been given on 6.11.2009 and the Collector had therefore taken that as an approval to do the work of stamp vendor. The Collector's decision was adversely commented by the Financial Commissioner and he proceeded to take a different decision which was subsequently affirmed by the Financial Commissioner through the impugned order.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that under the relevant rules the power to authorize a person to vend stamps vested with the Collector and therefore he was fully competent to issue the order which he did and there was no necessity for him to take the concurrence of the Commissioner. A decision taken by the Collector could not have been interfered with by the Financial Commissioner and subsequent decision was not an independent decision but literally guided by the directions of the Financial Commissioner. I accept the contention of the petitioner that the Collector had the competence to authorize a person to vend stamps under the Punjab Stamp Vendor Rules but the decision passed on 23.11.2009 must still stand the test of what the Collector was required to do at the time of giving such authorization. This has come through certain instructions after an adjudication from this Court in a batch of writ petitions in CWP 2247 of 2008 titled Vijay Kumar Vs. State and other cases. This Court was directing that a proper procedure and criteria should be framed for issue of licenses to stamp vendors and keeping in view the directions from this Court, the Deputy Secretary Revenue has given instructions to all the Collectors/Deputy Commissioners in the State on 12.8.2008 setting out the factors to be considered at the time of grant of such licenses. The direction envisages constitution of a committee with Additional Deputy Commissioner as Chairman, Sub Divisional Magistrate at District quarter as a member and District Revenue Officer as yet another member. The three persons would act as a Screening Committee and will test any candidate on a maximum marks of 100 out of which 70 marks were to be decided on the basis of a written examination for eligible candidates and 20 marks would be ear marked for educational qualification and 10 marks to be awarded on the basis of interview. The original order of the Collector was deficient, for, he did no more than take into account the approval of the Inspector General for the document writer to do also the work of stamp vending. When the Collector was exercising the jurisdiction to give an authorization to vend stamps, he was bound to follow the procedure which was prescribed through the directions of the Deputy Secretary, Revenue which in turn has been formulated on the lines of the directions given by this Court.;