Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.4276 of 1983, decided on 21st January, 1985.

---Art. 9--Natural justice--Petitioner neither replying to charges against him nor availing of opportunities of hearing afforded and failing to submit his written explanation to show-cause notice despite several opportunities given for that purpose and as such clearly defaulting in putting up his defence which he did after passing of impugned order against him--Petitioner, held, could not be heard to complain of violation of rules of natural justice circumstances.

---Art. 9--Constitutional jurisdiction--Petitioner failing to avail of opportunities to defend himself before appropriate forum for reasons best known to him--Petitioner, held, could not be permitted for first time in constitutional jurisdiction to raise pleas for defence which he was required to adduce before competent forum below

---Art. 9--Constitutional petition--Petitioner a stamp vendor, his licence cancelled by Deputy Commissioner/ Collector on report of Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer after serving him charge-sheet and when no reply was submitted by him despite repeatedly called upon to explain his position--Concurrent findings recorded against petitioner by tribunals below and nothing of any worth pointed out to reflect on validity of their orders--Question whether Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer was competent or not to check registers of petitioner, of no avail to petitioner for simple reason that he had failed to raise objection before special forums at appropriate time--Petitioner also failing to show want of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction or failure to exercise of jurisdiction on part of functionaries below--Interference declined in constitutional jurisdiction.

Malik Muhammad Akbar for Petitioner.

M. Akhtar Shabbir, A.A.-G. for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 21st January 1985.

This writ petition has been filed by a licensed stamp vendor working in District Court premises at Gujranwala whose stamp vending licence was cancelled by the order of Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, Gujranwala, dated 23-9-1982 on various charges.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 7-2-1982, the Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, Gujranwala checked the stamp vending register of the petitioner and he detected the following irregularities:-

(a) In the stamp vending register, the following serial numbers were purposely kept blank apparently for making anti-date entries:-

3360, 3385, 3429, 3430, 3434, 3441,

3442, 3494, 3500, 3503, 3504, 3537,

3575, 3663, 3664, 3669, and 3672.

(b) Two lines were also found blank between serial numbers 3441 and 3442. It was done with some ulterior motive.

(c) A number of columns where the signatures of the purchasers are obtained were also found blank in his register.

(d) In his stock of stamps, two non=judicial stamps for Rs.5 each were found written in the form of agreement without entering the names of the purchasers, their addresses and dates.

The petitioner was charge-sheeted and was called upon to show cause as to why his stamp vending licence should not be cancelled and Was also required to submit his written explanation by 23-2-1982 failing which it would be presumed that he had no explanation to offer and action would be taken against the petitioner ex parte. The petitioner inspected the record on 17-3-1982. He failed to submit his explanation and thereafter was given two opportunities to appear/submit his explanation on 21-4-1982 and 19-5-1982 but he evaded service of these letters. He was then summoned for 1-6-1982 through the Excise and Taxation Officer, Gujranwala. This notice was received by the petitioner on 27-5-1982, but despite it he failed to submit his written explanation or appear for personal hearing. Last notice was sent to the petitioner on 12-9-1982 for explanation by 20-9-1982 and to appear for personal hearing on 23-9-1982. This notice was also received by the petitioner on 14-9-1982. He, however, failed to submit his written explanation or appear before the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector on 23-9-1982.

From the above circumstances and default of the petitioner, respondent No.3 inferred that he had admitted his fault and had no explanation to offer. He also took into consideration the statement of petitioner, dated 7-1-1982 recorded by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, Gujranwala wherein the petitioner had admitted his fault and begged to be excused. The learned Deputy Commissioner/ Collector thus came to the conclusion that the petitioner stamp-vendor admitted his fault and has no explanation to offer. He accordingly cancelled his vending licence for contravention of provisions of Punjab Stamp Rules, 1934 and a fine of 89.500 was also imposed.

3. The petitioner appealed before the learned Commissioner, Gujranwala Division who through an elaborate and detailed order dismissed the same on 6-12-1982. The petitioner approached the learned Member, Board of Revenue by way of revision petition and the learned Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue too after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner dismissed the same on 16-6-1983.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Law Officer. There is no satisfactory explanation given by the petitioner as to why he failed to submit his written explanation to the show-cause notice despite several opportunities and thus clearly defaulted in putting up his defence. He did submit his defence on 25-9-1983 after the impugned order, dated 23-9-1982 had been passed The petitioner, in these circumstances, cannot be heard to complain of violation of rules of natural justice. He had been playing hide and seek with the competent authorities. He neither replied to the charges nor availed of the opportunities to be heard. The petitioner having failed to avail of the appropriate opportunities to defend himself before the appropriate forum, for reasons best known to him, cannot be permitted for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction to raise the pleas for defence which he was required to adduce before the competent forum below. There are concurrent findings recorded against him by tribunals below. Nothing of any worth or substance was pointed out to reflect on the validity of the impugned orders. The question whether an Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer was competent or not competent to check the registers of the petitioner can be of no avail to the petitioner for the simple reason that lie had failed to raise this objection before the special forums at the appropriate stage.

In the above circumstances, I find no scope for interference in constitutional jurisdiction as the petitioner has failed to show want of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction or failure to exercise the same on the part of functionaries below. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.

M.Y.H. Writ refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.