Stamp paper vendor license procedure in Pakistan.Agar department license jari na kare ?( If authority refuse (Process after refusing)

How to issue stamp vendor licence

The following judgement is latest on the topic in which honorable high court explain the process of issuing license of stamp vander.

For stamp farosh vender license requirements are matric qualification and police character certificate, there should not be any criminal record of the candidate.

The petitioner of the writ file application before the commitioner for issue license of stamp frosh in 2014,

But the application never accepted and reject on the ground of that the police inquiry is fake.

Learned law officer explain the court that Punjab government have not any policy on issuing of the license.

And also the government also not advertising in newspaper as it is compulsory by law to give equal chance all the people who are eligible for license of.

If you have any question call or Whatsapp (+92-324-4010279)

Stereo. H C J D A 38.

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT

RAWALPINDI BENCH RAWALPINDI

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

W.P No.2803/2020

Mubashir Ali Awan

Versus

Commissioner Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi etc.

J U D G M E N T

Date of Hearing

28.11.2022

Petitioner By:

Ms. Asia Tabassum, Advocate

Respondents By: Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal, Additional

Advocate General, Punjab along with

Mian Tariq Mehmood, Superintendent

and Muhammad Ilyas Khan, PA in the

office of respondent No.2.

Anwaar Hussain J: Through the present constitutional

petition, actions and in-actions on part of the respondents regarding

non-issuance of Stamp Vending License (“the license”) to the

petitioner has been challenged.

It is the case of the petitioner that he repeatedly approached the

respondents for grant of the license in terms of the Punjab Stamp

Rules, 1934 (“Rules”), however, he has been, proverbially speaking,

made to wait for Godot, inter-alia, on the ground that there is no seat

vacant. In order to substantiate his stance, learned counsel for the

petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to order of the Provincial

Ombudsman dated 24.05.2017 wherein the stance of the respondents

is duly recorded. Further contends that even during pendency of the

present petition, another application was also made, however, no order

W.P No.2803/2020

has been passed thereon, rather, the requests of the petitioner for

issuance of the license has earned the wrath of the authority concerned

which vent its anger and displeasure against his brother and the

license already granted to the brother of the petitioner has been

cancelled that brings forth the malafide at play vis-à-vis the requests

of the petitioner.

Conversely, learned Law Officer submits that police

verification submitted by the petitioner along with his application was

checked and the same was found bogus and hence, his request was

accordingly declined as good moral character is one of the condition

precedents for grant of the license. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the

petitioner has referred to the latest computerized character certificate

of the petitioner, dated 19.11.2022 issued by office of District Police

Officer, Attock to contend that decision of the respondents in

declining the request is unlawful.

Arguments Heard. Record Perused.

After initial report and para-wise comments had been filed and

preliminary arguments were heard, this Court directed the learned

Law Officer to ensure filing of fresh report and para-wise comments

while highlighting as to the procedure to be followed while

entertaining applications for grant of the license. Fresh report has been

filed and same has been taken on record today, perusal whereof

depicts that since 2017 till 29.03.2022 as many as 08 licenses have

been issued to various persons to the exclusion of the petitioner. The

learned Law Officer was confronted as to existence or otherwise of

the mechanism and guidelines to be followed by the authority

concerned for the grant of the license in order to bring the process in

consonance with the transparency and fair-play as the stamp-vending

assignment not only involves an opportunity of livelihood for

W.P No.2803/2020

aspirants but the public exchequer in the form of revenue and valuable

rights of citizens in the form of agreements reduced on such stamppapers are also involved. In response, the learned Law Officer

candidly concedes that there is neither any mechanism, guidelines and

Standard Operating Procedure (“SOPs”) for issuance of the license

nor applications for the grant of such license are invited from

aspirants through publication in any newspaper, however, contends

that the creation of seat for grant of stamp vending license is the

prerogative of the Commissioner and Collector concerned is the

competent authority to grant such license and only police verification

is required along with some basic educational qualification. Certainly,

the matter is of great public importance and requires judicial scrutiny

inasmuch as admittedly, a concrete policy is not in place for creation

and filling of the seats of stamp vendors.

The legal framework in existence as to grant of the license for

stamp vending is provided under Section 74 of the Stamp Act, 1899

(“the Act”) and the Rules, which have been framed thereunder.

Section 74 of the Act empowers the Government to make rules as to

who can sell stamp papers, which for facility of reference, is

reproduced hereunder:

“74.

Power to make rules relating to sale of stamps.–

The Government may make rules for regulating–

(a) the supply and sale of stamps and stamped

papers,

(b) the persons by whom alone such sale is to be

conducted, and

persons.”

(Emphasis supplied)

W.P No.2803/2020

Rule 22 of the Rules defines classes of vendors as under:

“Vendors.—There shall be two classes of vendors, namely—

(a) ex-officio vendor as defined in rule 1(f):

(b) licensed or specially licensed vendor as defined in rule

1(g), (h) and (i).”

Rule 23 contemplates that no person other than a vendor or his agent

as defined under the Rules shall, unless specially authorized by the

Collector of the District, sell stamps other than revenue stamps of the

value of certain denomination. Rule 25 of the Rules provides that the

maximum number of licenses to be issued shall be fixed by the

Collector of the District in consultation with the Commissioner of the

Division and the Collector shall not issue licenses in excess of such

numbers as fixed without concurrence of the Commissioner. Thus, the

Collector is vested with the power to issue the license to vend stamp

up to numbers fixed for a District or Tehsil, as the case may be, and in

case the Collector intends to issue any license in excess of such

numbers, he shall seek concurrence of the Commissioner concerned.

Similarly, Rule 26 of the Rules, inter alia, provides that the Collector

or other officer empowered by the Local Government in this behalf

may grant a license for the sale of stamp to any person at any place or

within any area within the limits of his District of any value or

description. Rule 28 lays down number of conditions to regulate the

work and duties of a licensee. Similarly, Rule 34 prescribes the

remuneration of vendors in terms of entitlement to discount at certain

rate on the value of every court-fee stamps purchased by him from an

ex-officio vendor as well as commission allowed on non-judicial

stamps as well as discount at the rates specified in the schedule on the

value of every non-judicial stamps purchased by a licensee from an

ex-officio vendor. Here it is imperative to note that this Court is also

W.P No.2803/2020

mindful of the fact that with the revolutionary advancement having

been made in the field of information technology, the issuance of

stamp papers has also been computerized and made available online

through authorized bank with the result that the stamp papers can be

purchased directly online, however, since the stamp vending licenses

are being issued and such licensees are authorized to sell stamp papers

below the prescribed denomination, the above mentioned examination

of the matter, on the one hand, makes it crystal clear that holder of the

license under the Act read with the Rules receives the stamps from the

Government Treasury for sale to the public and receives commission

out of the public revenue for performance of his work and is also duty

bound to maintain the correct account and record of all such receipts

and sale of stamp papers on the Registers prescribed for this purpose

which renders the office of licensee a Public Office as held in case

reported as “Abdul Ghafar v. The State etc.” (2012 P.Cr. LJ 255), and

on the other hand perusal of the above provisions of the Act and the

Rules brings forth that no mechanism in the Rules have been provided

for the grant of the license to a stamp vendor and unfettered and

unstructured discretion has been vested with the Collector concerned.

The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as “Maqbool

Ahmed Qureshi v. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan” (PLD 1999 SC

484) held that the appointment against an office, official agency, job

or employment has to be made on merit of a person. Similarly, the

Hon’ble Apex Court in case reported as “Walayat Ali Mir v. Pakistan

International Airlines Corporation through tis Chairman and

another” (1995 SCMR 650) held as under:

“8-A

The discretion is not to be exercised on

whims, caprices and moods of the authorities. It is now

well-settled that exercise of discretion is circumscribed

by principles of justice and fairness. The authority

exercising discretion should take into consideration and

W.P No.2803/2020

advance the aim and object of the enactment, rule or

regulation under which it is authorized to act.”

Similarly, in cases reported as “In re: Abdul Jabbar Memon and

others” (Human Rights Cases Nos.104(i), 104(ii), 104(iii), 104(iv) of

1992, heard on 6

th March, 1993) (1996 SCMR 1349) and “Mushtaq

Ahmad Mohal and others v. The Honourable Lahore High Court,

Lahore and others” (1997 SCMR 1043), it has been held by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that in matters which involve

public participation pertaining to pursuit of profession through

permanent jobs or otherwise, the matter should be advertised properly

inasmuch as under Article 27 read with Articles 18, 25 and 2A of the

Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, mandates that

every citizen shall have the right to enter upon any lawful profession

or occupation and to conduct any lawful trades or business.

The instant case highlights an important aspect pertaining to

how the license for stamp-vending is being issued, across the Province

of Punjab, by exercise of unfettered and unstructured discretion and

without any guiding principles and policy framework in place. The

learned Law Officer has been fair in assisting this Court in

acknowledging that there are no SOPs or criteria carved out by the

Provincial Government in this regard on the strength of which seats

are created and more importantly filled while granting the license

except requirement of police verification and a vague reference to

marks assigned for possessing minimum education (matric as per the

fresh report) and this inaction is a cause of unnecessary litigation as

well as hardship for the individuals such as the petitioner, who aspire

to seek issuance of the license. It is also noted that besides lack of

policy guidelines for issuance of the license, the process is also bereft

of transparency and fair play as the license is dished out to aspirants

of liking on mere filing of an application without any formal

W.P No.2803/2020

advertisement in a newspaper inviting applications thereof so that the

largest pool of the aspirants can come to know about

creation/existence or vacancy of such a seat for grant of license in a

District as the same carries with it an opportunity for any citizen

interested to apply for the same and, if qualified, gives an opportunity

to earn his bread and butter, which is fundamental right of every

citizen.

The above discussion propels to the conclusion that grant of the

license has to be in consonance with some settled criterion to structure

the discretion which is currently unfettered and unguided. In a

judgment, dated 02.09.2011, from the neighboring jurisdiction in case

titled “Mohan Lal Bansal and another Vs State of Punjab and

others”, bearing (CWP No.19842 of 2010, (available at

https://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/27949412) the grant of license by

Collector was set aside by the Financial Commissioner and

subsequently, the High Court of the Punjab and Haryana upheld the

decision of the Financial Commissioner and held that grant of license

by Collector to be deficient for not following and adherence to the

directions and instructions issued by Deputy Secretary, Revenue

which in fact were the directions of the said High Court in another

case titled “Vijay Kumar Vs State and other cases” bearing Writ

Petition No. CWP 2247 of 2008 that goes on to show that in the

neighboring jurisdiction where the law, on the subject, is in

pari materia to the provisions of the Act as well as the Rules, the

unfettered and unstructured discretion, have come in for judicial

scrutiny and the same has been structured through issuance of certain

instructions.

The absence of a criterion for grant of the license is the cause

which coerces individuals like the petitioner to move from pillar to

W.P No.2803/2020

post for redressal of their grievance. In this regard, it is imperative to

note that the petitioner applied for grant of the license in the year 2014

and was declined, which constrained the petitioner to approach the

office of learned Ombudsman, Punjab, before whom the official

respondents took the stance that the case of the petitioner will be

examined in accordance with law as and when a seat is created, which

never happened although admittedly, multiple licenses have been

issued to the people in Tehsil Fateh Jang detail whereof is given in the

fresh report and for facility of reference the same is reproduced herein

below:

Sr.

No.

No. of License

& Date

Name of applicant

Place

34/29.1.2019

Syed Rasool Shah s/o Syed

Mubarik Shah r/o Bhal Syedan

Tehsil

Office

332/8.10.2019

Dilawar Khan s/o Muhammad

Sadiq of Fatehjang

Fatehjang

10/8.1.2020

Saqib Ali s/o Rab Nawaz r/o

Fatehjang

304/28.10.2020 Muhammad Ali s/o Nazar

Abbas r/o Fatehjang

Fatehjang

314/3.11.2020

Zameer Hussain Shah s/o

Noor-ul-Haq r/o Charat

Fatehjang

318/11.11.2020 Asif Mehmood s/o

Muhammad Miskeen Mujahid

of Fatehjang.

Fatehjang

600/25.5.2021

Mudassar Bilal s/o Abdul

Qadir of Fatehjang

Fatehjang

85/29.3.2022

Usman Tariq s/o Tariq

Masood r/o Fatehjang.

Fatehjang

The petitioner has been knocked out on the ground that he has failed

to fulfill the criteria for grant of the license under the Rules,

particularly his police verification report was found bogus. The police

report in question was issued by the SHO, Fateh Jang. This fact was

confronted to learned counsel for the petitioner who with the

permission of the Court has tendered fresh character certificate under

W.P No.2803/2020

the seal of Police Station, Fateh Jang dated 21.11.2022, which clearly

reads as under:

"دصتقی یک اجیت ےہ ہک اسلئ رشبم یلع ودل دمحم انیم اوعان ہنکس ڈوھک دیساں احل میقم ہلحم رکم اخن روڈ حتف

گنج علض اکٹ اک راہیشئ و وکسیتن ےہ۔ اسلئ ےک الخف یسک یھب دعاتل ای اھتہن ںیم وکیئ دقمہم زری امستع ہن

ےہ۔ دصتقی اطمبقب انشیتخاکرڈ ےہ۔

Sd/

Malik Muhammad Siddique,

General Councillor

U.C 42, Sharha Asadullah

Fateh Jang (Attock)

"19.11.22

"انجب اعیل

زگارش ےہ ہک یمسم رشبم یلع ودلدمحم انیم اوعان اسنکڈوھک دیساں / حتف گنج یک ڑپاتل راکیرڈاھتہن رکےن

رپ دعم راکیرڈاور دعم زسا ایہتف اپای ایگ ےہ۔ روپرٹ رعض ےہ۔

Sd/

SHO,

Police Station, Fateh Jang.

"21.11.22

Perusal of the said character certificate reveals that the same was

initially issued by the General Councilor concerned and then endorsed

by the SHO concerned and is taken on record as Mark ‘A’. Similarly,

the computerized police character verification certificate issued by the

office of District Police Officer, Attock has also been taken on record

as Mark ‘B’ and there are no adverse remarks against the petitioner.

10.

In view of the documents placed on record by the petitioner

side, it appears that the petitioner has been hard done by the

authorities concerned merely because he has approached the office of

learned Ombudsman, Punjab as well as this Court for redressal of his

grievance. Therefore, the application of the petitioner for grant of the

license shall be deemed to be pending before the Collector concerned

who shall pass a fresh order in this regard by taking into account the

observations made herein and if there is no other impediment, the

petitioner is held entitled to be considered for grant of the license and

the computerized character certificate presented today may also be

verified from the office of District Police Officer, Attock as to its

genuineness or otherwise. Needful shall be done within a period of

fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order,

under intimation to Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.

11.

Having remitted the matter of the petitioner to the authority

concerned for decision afresh with the above-mentioned observations,

it is imperative to hold that the unfettered and unstructured discretion

in grant of the license, for stamp vending, needs to be structured

through issuance of proper instructions by the authority concerned

under the Punjab Government Rules of Business 2011 (“Rules of

Business”). In Province of Punjab, so far, this aspect has been eluded

the attention of the competent authority under Rules of Business

which is the Board of Revenue, Punjab in terms of entries recorded

under the Second Schedule made thereunder pertaining to the

distribution of business among the departments. Board of Revenue is

also responsible for the administration of the Act, under the Rules of

Business. Lack of instructions have perpetuated the unstructured

exercise of discretion while granting the license, which cannot be

countenanced under the jurisprudence developed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the exercise of discretion by the

public functionaries.

12.

In view of the above discussion, Office is directed to transmit a

copy of this judgment to the Senior Member, Board of Revenue,

Punjab who, being administrative head, of the Revenue Department,

under the Rules of Business, is directed to look into the matter

holistically and ensure that proper policy guidelines regarding creation

of the seats for the stamp vendors as also regarding qualifications and