Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/9 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 17 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/9
GAHC010205272023
2025:GAU-
AS:15544-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5572/2023
ALL ASSAM STAMP VENDORS ASSOCIATION
A REGD. SOCIETY UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT HAVING
REGISTERED NO-73/1967-68,
HAVING ITS PERMANENT REGISTERED OFFICE AT JORHAT WITH A
TEMPORARY OFFICE AT GUWAHATI,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY BIPUL HAZARIKA, AGE 52 YRS, S/O- BIREN
HAZARIKA,
R/O- KAMALABORIA GAON,
P.O- GOROKHIADOL,
DIST- JORHAT, PIN-785015
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE
AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06
2:THE CHIEF SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR GUWAHATI-06
3:THE SDUPERINTENDENT OF STAMPS
ASSAM
RUPNAGAR
GUWAHATI
4:STOCK HOLDING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED
A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED IN 1986 AS A SUBSIDIARY
Page No.# 2/9
OF IFCI AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 301
CENTRE POINT
PAREL
MUMBAI-12
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
5:STOCK HOLDING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED
ASSAM
GUWAHATI
GROUND FLOOR
JADAV BORA COMPLEX
MANIRAM DEWAN
G.S ROAD, ULUBARI
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
-07
REP. BY ITS AREA MANAGER
6:PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT)
ASSAM
MAIDAM GAON
GUWAHATI-781029
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B B NARZARY, MR. P MAHANTA,MS. P SAHARIA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, MR C BARUAH (R 6),MR ARINDAM BARUAH
(R4, R5),MR BHARGAV DAS (R4, R5),MR. K P PATHAK (R4, R5),GA, ASSAM
Linked Case : PIL/74/2023
DHANU RAM DAS AND ANR
S/O ASA RAM DAS
R/O VILL/TOWN BAMUNI GAON
P.S.-CHANGSARI
KAMRUP
ASSAM
2: AJIM ALI
S/O LATE AJAR ALI
R/O NORTH GUWAHATI
BAMUNI GAON
KAMRUP
CHANGSARI
ASSAM 781101
Page No.# 3/9
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR GUWAHATI-06
KAMRUP (M) ASSAM
2:THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
DISPUR GUWAHATI-06
KAMRUP (M) ASSAM
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STAMPS
ASSAM
RUPNAGAR GUWAHATI
4:STOCK HOLDING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 301
CENTRE POINT
DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR ROAD
PAREL
MUMBAI-40012
5:STOCK HOLDING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED
ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS AREA MANAGER
GUWAHATI
GROUND FLOOR
JADAV BORA COMPLEX
MANIRAM DEWAN
G.S. ROAD
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-06
ASSAM
------------
Page No.# 4/9
For the petitioners : Mr. P. Mahanta, Advocate
In WP(C) 5572/2025
Ms. T. Som, Advocate in
For the respondents : Ms. N. Bordoloi, S.C., Revenue
For the respondent No.1
Ms. S. Sarma,
Govt. Advocate, Assam for
Mr. B. Das, Advocate for
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
17-11-2025
(Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.)
WP(C) 5572/2023 and PIL 74/2023 have been heard together and
the both are being disposed off by this common judgment.
2. We have heard Mr. P. Mahanta and Ms. T. Som, learned Advocates
for the petitioners in the afore-noted cases and Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned
Standing Counsel, Revenue for the respondents.
3. The petitioners represent the society of registered stamp vendors in
Assam who have traditionally earned their livelihood by selling physical
non-judicial stamps and earning commissions ranging from 6% to 10%.
4. The primary grievance stems from a cabinet decision dated
Page No.# 5/9
15.06.2023 mandating complete discontinuation of physical non-judicial
stamps with effect from 01.10.2023, transitioning fully to a 100% digital e-
stamping system. The decision was formalised vide Notification dated
23.06.2023 and supported by the Assam Digital Stamp (Payment of Duty
by Means of E-Stamp) Rules, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as "2023
Rules") enacted under Sections 10, 74 and 75 of the Indian Stamp Act,
1899.
5. As a transitional measure, the vendors were allowed to sell physical
stamps purchased before 30.06.2023 but only till 30.09.2023. After this
deadline, all physical stamp transactions have been barred. The vendors
are required to convert their establishments into Authorised Collection
Centres or Common Service Centres, thereby enabling them to continue
operating under the e-stamping regime. The Government, as an
ameliorative measure, has also offered one-time financial assistance of
Rs.1 lakh to such stamp vendors to facilitate this transition.
6. The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that this was an abrupt
shift which has deprived them of their livelihood. The other ground of
challenge is that there has been no meaningful transitional period and
that financial assistance offered is abysmally low. The petitioners have
also questioned the legislation on the ground that new commission
structure is heavily reduced and the total discontinuance has seriously
affected most of the stamp vendors, who are in the climacteric stage of
the lives and some of them are differently-abled.
7. The sum and substance of their argument is that total prohibition on
Page No.# 6/9
sale of physical stamp violates the Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution so far as the petitioners are concerned, specially in the wake
of the rehabilitation package being illusory.
8. The State has responded that the e-stamps eliminate fraud, leakage
and counterfeiting. Even otherwise, the stamp vendors cannot claim any
vested right to continue in the same profession even after the change of
the rules. So far as the transitional assistance is concerned, the State
responds that it is a matter of executive policy.
The questions, therefore, before this Bench are whether such
discontinuance of sale of physical stamps is unconstitutional; whether it is
violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution; whether the vendors
are entitled to higher quantum of financial assistance and whether a
mandamus could be issued to modify the policy to any extent
whatsoever.
9. It has been long settled that a legislation can be interfered with only
if it is arbitrary; contrary to the statutes and disproportionate. It requires no
repetition that Court of law never sits in an appeal over economic
policies. There can be interference only if the policy decisions are
interpreted to be conspicuously arbitrary or suffer from lack of legislative
competence or are violative of the fundamental rights.
10. The stamp vendors are the licensees of the State. They do not hold
a vested or perpetual right to continue in the business of sale of physical
stamps. The continuance of a trade depends entirely on statutory rules
and there could be no vested right to continue in a trade when the State
Page No.# 7/9
changes the licensing policy. The right to trade is subject to reasonable
restrictions and the change in the policy of the State of going fully digital
so far as the stamps are concerned, is only reasonable and does not
violate any one of the fundamental rights.
11. We have tested the submissions urged on behalf of the parties from
a different angle as well, viz. putting the legislation to the proportionality
test as enunciated in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and
another vs. Union of India and others, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
12. The proportionality test puts the legislation in the wringer to assess
the legitimate aim of legislation; its rational connection with the object
sought to be achieved; the necessity of enacting such legislation and
consideration of balancing factors.
On all these fronts, the submissions made on behalf of the stamp
vendors/petitioners do not appear to be sustainable. The legitimate aim
of the legislation is to provide e-stamps for the ease of business as also to
avoid counterfeiting or leakage of stamps. It has rational connection
because it is not unknown that counterfeit stamps were draining out the
economy of the State, thus, necessitating the shifting to digital mode.
13. In connection with the balancing factor, we are of considered view
that public interest outweighs the individual economic losses.
14. The petitioners have also raised objection with respect to the
quantum of financial assistance. We are afraid whether we can enter
into this domain, specially when the State in its wisdom has already
Page No.# 8/9
offered an assistance of Rs.1 lakh for converting the establishments of the
petitioners into authorised Collection Centres or Common Service
Centres.
15. The legitimate expectation of the petitioners of the soft-landing of
such legislation is not understandable. The legitimate expectations of a
group of people cannot override policy decisions of the State.
16. However, at this stage, we do reckon that the State would do good
if a training module is brought out for the desirous stamp vendors, in
computer proficiency for effectively running such centres.
The petitioners would be at liberty to approach the appropriate
authority for the same.
17. Thus in totality, we find that the State is within its jurisdiction to
impose burdens and this Court would be absolutely loath in passing any
order for rolling back of the policy.
18. A strong argument has been made on behalf of the petitioners by
Mr. P. Mahanta, learned Advocate that stamps worth several crores,
which were issued earlier, are being wasted. This again is a matter of
policy for which no mandamus can be issued.
19. On the contrary, we have found that a humane and calibrating
approach has been taken by the State in providing a window to the
stamp vendors which could have been, we admit, a little longer but after
so many years of the policy having been rolled out, there is nothing much
which could be done except expecting, in case so deemed necessary,
Page No.# 9/9
a training module for the surviving stamp vendors or perhaps providing
them with some kind of technical support for carrying on the Collection
Centres under the digital regime.
20. We thus grant liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate
authority for the afore-noted technical support and training, but no
further.
21. We are thus constrained to dismiss both the petitions as we have not
found any fault with the change in the policy and the legislation to give
effect to such change.
Both the petitions are dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
