Daniel vs The Government Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 13895 Ker

W. A. No. 206 of 2016         -1-



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
                                &
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
   TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1943
                        WA NO. 206 OF 2016
  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 28137/2013 OF HIGH COURT OF
                        KERALA, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/S:

            R. DANIEL
            AGED 45 YEARS
            S/O. RAJAMANI, KOTTAVILA VEEDU, VANDIPERIYAR
            P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.
            BY ADV SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN


RESPONDENT/S:

     1      THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES (E)
            DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-
            695001.
     2      THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
            IDUKKI, PIN-685603.
     3      THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER
            IDUKKI, MOOLAMATTOM, PIN-685589.
     4      THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
OTHER PRESENT:

            SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE, SR GP FOR RESPONDENTS


     THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W. A. No. 206 of 2016                -2-




                           JUDGMENT

S. Manikumar, C. J.

Judgment impugned in this writ appeal in W. P. (C) No. 28137

of 2013 dated 13.10.2015 is extracted:-

"The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext. P4 by which his request for appointing him as stamp vendor at Vandiperiyar has been rejected by the competent authority. The petitioner submits that despite the fact he is fully qualified and sufficient opportunities were available in the area, no steps have been taken in that regard in terms of the procedure prescribed, in notification dated 07.08.2006.

2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent stating that the notification dated 7.8.2006 is not in force as the same has been withdrawn as per G.O. dated 13.7.2007. Presently the requirement of stamp vendors will be duly published by the Government and necessary steps will be taken in terms of circular dated 30.06.2010.

3. In the said circumstances, when the notification under which the petitioner had claimed for appointment had already ceased to be in force, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to any relief. However, it shall always be open for the petitioner to submit necessary application when applications are called for by the Government in this regard.

With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of."

2. Assailing the correctness of the same, appellant has raised the

following grounds:-

A. The contention that the notification dated 7/8/2006 is not in

force, as the same has been withdrawn as per G.O.P. Dated

13/7/2007 is factually wrong. The notification was never

withdraw or became invalid.

B. The amendment made to the Kerala Manufacture and Sale of

Stamp Rules 1960 by issuing G.O.P. No.156/2007 will not in

any way affect the notification dated 7/8/2006 pursuant to

which the appellant was selected. The learned Single Judge

went wrong in assuming so.

C. The appellant is fully qualified to get licence for vending

stamp as per the Kerala Manufacture and Sale of Stamp Rule

1960.

D. The appellant submitted application in the year 1999 and the

District Committee as per the Rules have found him eligible.

But no appointment is given. This is highly illegal arbitrary

and unjust.

E. As it is revealed from Ext.P2 the petitioner is again included in

the list of eligible candidates. But due to the interference of

the 1st respondent no further action is forth coming.

3. Before the writ court, the Secretary, Taxes (E) Department,

Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, the 1st respondent, has filed a

detailed counter affidavit as hereunder:-

"2. The above Writ Petition is filed for directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Stamp Vendor at Vandiperiyar and other consequential reliefs.

3. It is submitted that Government have decided to introduce 'e-stamping' system in the State shortly. Once 'e- stamping' system is introduced, the role of stamp vendors will become insignificant. As such, it has been decided in principle that no permanent stamp vendors need to be appointed further and the existing vacancies of stamp vendors need not be filled up by appointing permanent stamp vendors. In this connection, it is also submitted that as per Rule 35 (9) of the Kerala manufacture and Sale of Stamp (Amendment) Rules, 2007, the District Treasury Officer has been vested with the power to make adhoc appointment of stamp vendors. Therefore, if the District Treasury

Officer is satisfied that there is necessity of a stamp vendor in a particular place under his jurisdiction, he is empowered to appoint a temporary stamp vendor in that place.

4. It is submitted that while the formalities for appointment of stamp vendors as per notification dated 07.08.2006 of the 3rd respondent were going on, Government issued notification amending Rule 35 of the Kerala manufacture and Sale of Stamp Rules, 1960 (G.O.(P) No. 156/2007/T D dated 13.07.2007, SRO No.614/2007). As per the said amendment, the authority to determine the number of stamp vendors required in a district was vested with the Government. Moreover, it was also stipulated that notification regarding vacancies of stamp vendors will be issued by the Government, after giving wide publicity through the newspapers and electronic media. In this context, the notification dated 07.08.2006 issued by the 3rd respondent became invalid and the entire process are required to be completed afresh in accordance with the new guidelines.

5. It is submitted that during the process of appointment of stamp vendors as per the new guidelines, Government as per Circular No.28127/E3/2009/T.D. dated 19.04.2010 gave direction to the 4th respondent, the Director of Treasuries to take necessary steps to publish a unified notification to fill up the existing vacancies of permanent stamp vendors across the state before 30.06.2010. In pursuance to the direction issued by the Government, the 4th respondent as per Circular No.26/2010 dated 01.06.2010, issued instruction to the 3rd respondent to stop all

procedures for the appointment of stamp vendors already undertaken by them.

6. It is submitted that as stipulated in Ext.R1(a) Circular, the unified list of vacancies of stamp vendors across the state along with the proposal for creation of additional posts of stamp vendors were furnished to the Government as per letter dated F1/1454.2009 dated 28.02.2013 of the 4th respondent. But at that time, Government had advanced far ahead with the measures for implementing 'e-stamping' system in the State. Therefore, it was decided by the Government that appointment of stamp vendors will not be made against the vacancies reported by the 4 th respondent

7. It is submitted that the denial of vendor license to the petitioner is attributed to the policy decision taken by the Government to implement 'e stamping' system in the State and to cease appointment of new permanent stamp vendors. It is also submitted that no willful efforts were taken by the Government to deny vendor license to the petitioner, but because of the new policy decision of the Government to convert the existing system to 'e-stamping' thereby to save time and to prevent fake stamp vending.

8. It may be noted that the denial of vendor license to the petitioner is attributed to the policy decision of the Government to implement 'e-stamping' system in the State and the same is not in any manner connected with the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner. The 4th respondent has reported that the 3rd and 4th

respondents have acted in accordance with the rules and regulations in force.

4. Going through the material on record, we find that the

appellant has made his claim on the basis of the notification dated

07.08.2006. Writ court after taking note of the contents of the counter

affidavit filed by the Secretary, Taxes (E) Department, Secretariat,

Thiruvananthapuram, the 1st respondent, found that the notification

dated 07.08.2006 is no longer in force, and that the same was

withdrawn as per G.O. dated 13.07.2007. Writ court has also found

that subsequently, Government have issued circular dated 30.06.2020,

based on which stamp vendors were selected.

At this juncture, nothing survives for consideration in this writ

appeal. Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

                                            SHAJI P.CHALY
                                                 JUDGE
Eb                                     ///TRUE COPY///P. A. TO JUDGE