Abhilasha Kumari JUDGMENT
Abhilasha Kumari, J.
1. Rule is issued in each petition. Mr. P.P. Banaji, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notices of Rule for the respondents in each petition. On the facts and in the circumstances of the respective cases and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, the petitions are being heard and decided by a common order, as identical questions of fact and law arise in all petitions, except for the differences in the dates of the licences of the petitioners. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the facts, as obtaining in Special Civil Application No. 9422 of 2014, are being referred to.
1.1. The petitioners of this petition were granted licences as Stamp Vendors under the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 ("the Stamp Act" for short) read with the Gujarat Stamp Supply and Sales Rules, 1987 ("the Rules" for short), as per the details mentioned in the table below:
1.2. The duration of the licences was for a period of one year. However, the licences were extended from time to time in all cases (except in Special Civil Application No. 12693 of 2014, where the application was made for the first time) by the Competent Authorities under the Rules. After such extension, the term under the licences was to expire on 31-3-2014. The petitioners had made applications for the renewal of their licences, as prescribed under Rule 6(2) of the Rules, on different dates. On 20-5-2014, respondent No. 2 - Deputy Collector and Prant Officer, Jhalod, issued show-cause notices to the petitioners under the subject "renewal of licences". It was stated in the said notices that the petitioners have made applications for renewal of their licences, however, as per instructions dated 7-1-2004, issued by respondent No. 1 - Superintendent of Stamps, to the effect that no person shall be granted a licence till new arrangements are made, and as no new licences have been issued after 1-1-2004, the petitioners should show cause why their licences ought not to be revoked. The petitioners were called upon to remain present, personally, on the next day, that is, 21-5-2014, at 12-00 hours, at the Prant Office, Jhalod, for this purpose. The petitioners appeared before respondent No. 2 - Prant Officer, as directed. On the very same day, by identically worded orders dated 21-5-2014, respondent No. 2 revoked the licences of the petitioners, on the ground that they cannot be renewed in view of the instructions dated 7-1-2004, issued by the Superintendent of Stamps. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners have approached this Court by preferring the present petitions, challenging, not only the orders of the revocation of their licences, but also the instructions dated 7-1-2004, issued by respondent No. 1.
2. Mr. Dhaval D. Vyas, learned Advocate for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 9422 of 2014, has made detailed submissions. Mr. Vimal A. Purohit, learned Advocate for the petitioners in the connected petitions, states that he adopts the arguments advanced by Mr. Dhaval D. Vyas, learned Advocate.
2.1. On behalf of the petitioners, it is submitted by Mr. Dhaval D. Vyas, learned Advocate, that the reason for the revocation of the licences of the petitioners is only that, according to the respondent-authorities, the said licences cannot be renewed due to the instructions dated 7-1-2004. The petitioners had made applications for the renewal of their licences and on the date on which the impugned orders dated 21-5-2014 were passed, their terms had already expired as the licences were not renewed. There cannot, therefore, be a revocation of a licence that no longer subsists. In any case, the revocation of the licences has only been done on the ground that they cannot be renewed. The reason for this action of the respondent-authorities is based solely upon the impugned instructions dated 7-1-2004, issued by respondent No. 1. It is submitted that a perusal of the said instructions clearly goes to show that insofar........