SHABBIRBHAI HAMIDBHAI CHUNAWALAversusSUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE
- Disposal
- 47-DISPOSAL IN ANY OTHER MODE FH
- Bench
- HEMANT M PRACHCHHAK
Holding
The refusal to renew the stamp‑vendor licence was not authorized under the Gujarat Stamp Supply and Sales Rules, 1987, and the petition was disposed, directing a fresh application for renewal.
Summary
The petitioner, a stamp vendor since 2007, applied for renewal of his licence under the Gujarat Stamp Supply and Sales Rules, 1987. The Sub‑Divisional Magistrate refused renewal on 15 September 2020, relying on an FIR registered against the petitioner under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The court held that the Rules do not require a police report and that the refusal was not based on any permissible ground under Rule 6 or Rule 10, constituting a mala‑fide action. Consequently, the order refusing renewal was set aside and the petitioner was directed to file a fresh application within four weeks, with the authority to decide it within eight weeks. The petition was disposed of without granting interim relief.
Issues considered
- Whether the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate could lawfully refuse renewal of a stamp‑vendor licence on the basis of an FIR under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
- Whether Rule 6 (and Rule 10) of the Gujarat Stamp Supply and Sales Rules, 1987, require a police report or any disqualification arising from the FIR.
- Whether the refusal amounted to mala‑fide action violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Legislation cited
- Court Fees Act
- Indian Stamp Act, 1899
- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Acts. 10, s. 5(1)(a), s. 8(4), s. 9
Subjects
Judgment
C/SCA/16214/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16214 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
SHABBIRBHAI HAMIDBHAI CHUNAWALA
Versus
SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MA KHARADI(1032) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 07/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles
14, 19, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w
the provision of Gujarat Stamp Act and the provision of
Gujarat Stamp Supply and Sales Rules, 1987 challenging
the impugned order / communication dated 15.09.2020
with below mentioned relief/s:-
"11 (A) Admit this petitioner
Page 1 of 5
C/SCA/16214/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026
(B) Allow this petition by quashing and setting aside the
order / communication dated 15.09.2020 by which the
respondent has refused to renew the petitioner's license
under the Rules
(C) Allow this petition by declaring that the stamp
vendor license can be refused to be renewed only if one
of the exigencies arise as provided in of Gujarat Stamp
Supply and Sales Rules.
(D) Grant the interim relief by staying the execution,
implementation and operation of the
order/communication dated 15.09.2020 and thereby
directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to
continue with his stamp vending profession, pending the
hearing and till final disposal of this petition.
(E) Award the cost of this petition.
(F) Grant such other and further relief(s) which may
deem fit to the Honourable Court in the interest of
justice."
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner has been
holding a stamp vending licence since 2007 under the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Court Fees Act. The
petitioner has complied with Rule 6 of the Gujarat Stamps
Supply and Sales Rules, 1987. None of the conditions
under sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 have been violated. Despite
this, the respondent, on extraneous and mala fide
considerations, refused renewal of the licence by order
dated 15.09.2020.
2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that Rule 6 read with
Rule 10 provides a complete mechanism for grant and
Page 2 of 5
C/SCA/16214/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026
renewal of licence. While granting or renewing a licence,
the authority is required to verify eligibility and
compliance with Rule 6. Rule 11 pertains to revocation;
however, the present case concerns refusal of renewal.
2.2 The Rules do not require obtaining a police report.
Nevertheless, the respondent sought such report with
mala fide intent. The report merely refers to an FIR under
the Animal Preservation Act, which is not a
disqualification under the Rules. The respondent relied on
irrelevant considerations without referring to any specific
provision or valid instructions, and illegally refused
renewal of the licence.
2.3 In view of the above facts the petitioner has filed
present petition.
3. Heard Mr. Kharadi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Mr. Kharadi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that impugned communication dated 15.9.2020 by which
the respondent has refused to renew the petitioner's
license under the Rules deserves to be quashed and set
aside. He has submitted that license of the petitioner has
expired in the year 2020. He submits that in the facts and
circumstances of the case, present petition may be
allowed.
5. I have perused the record of the petition as well as
Page 3 of 5
C/SCA/16214/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026
the relevant documents along with the impugned
communication.
6. It appears that, by communication dated 15.09.2020,
the application of the petitioner for renewal of the license
came to be rejected by the respondent on the ground that
an FIR had been registered against the petitioner under
Sections 5(1)(a), 8(4), 9 and 10 of the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act. On that very ground, the
application for renewal of the license was denied.
7. It appears that the licence had already expired in
2020, and the application for renewal was not considered
by the authority on grounds which are not permissible
under the Gujarat Stamp Supply and Sales Rules, 1987.
There is no prohibition under the said Rules, particularly
Rule 6, justifying such refusal.
8. In view of the above, the petitioner shall submit a fresh
application before the respondent authority along with all
necessary particulars. The respondent authority shall
consider the application afresh, in accordance with law,
without being influenced by the any order, and strictly in
accordance with the Gujarat Stamp Supply and Sales
Rules, 1987, as expeditiously as possible.
9. The petitioner shall file such application within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this
order, and the respondent authority shall decide the same
Page 4 of 5
C/SCA/16214/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of
the application.
10. With aforesaid observations, present petition stands
disposed of.
Direct service is permitted.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: SURESHKUMAR MOTIBHAI SOLANKI(HC00208), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 10/04/2026 18:33:02
Page 5 of 5
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.