IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7263 of 2009(C)
1. SURESH.C., AGED 46,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION,
3. THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES,
4. THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :06/03/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.7263 of 2009
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 6th day of March, 2009
J U D G M E N T
In this writ petition, a declaration that Sub Rule 22 of Rule 35
of the Kerala Manufacture and Sale of Stamp Rules, amended by
Ext.P1 Kerala Manufacture and Sale of Stamp (Amendment) Rules,
2007 is applicable to those who had attained the age of 65 on the
date of commencement of the Rule is sought for. The proviso to Sub
Rule 22 of Rule 35 of the Rules reads as under:-
“Provided that, if the death occurs before attaining the age of 65
years, a legal heir duly authorised by the other legal heirs, if any,
may be appointed as the licensed vendor in the vacancy if he is
otherwise qualified to be appointed and makes out an application
before the District Treasury Officer within three months from the
date of death.”
A reading of the Rules show that for a legal heir to claim
appointment on the death of the existing licencee, the death of the
licencee should have occurred before his attaining the age of 65
years.
2. In so far as this case is concerned, as is seen from Ext.P3,
the death occurred on 11/12/2008. At that time, the licencee had
WP(C) No.7263/2009
-2-
admittedly crossed 65 years. Subsequently, the petitioner made
application and that has been rejected by Ext.P2 relying on Rule 35
(22) of the Rules. It is thereupon that this writ petition has been
filed with the aforesaid and consequential prayers.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as
per the Rule as originally stood, there was no provision conferring
right on the legal heir to claim appointment on the death of the
licencee. According to him, the new restricted provision was
introduced only in 2007 and the licence in favour of the deceased
licencee was granted prior to 2007, and therefore, the position as it
stood at the time of grant should be applicable while dealing with
his claim for appointment.
4. I am not persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for
the petitioner. First of all, any claim for appointment by a legal heir
made subsequent to the introduction of Ext.P1 Rules has to be dealt
with in the light of the Rules as amended by Ext.P1. The fact that
the deceased licencee was granted the licence prior to 2007 is
immaterial. In so far as the validity of Ext.P2 is concerned, Clause
22 of Ext.P1 Rules itself would show that a concession has been
WP(C) No.7263/2009
-3-
extended to the legal heirs of the deceased licencee, who at the
time of death had not attained the age of 65. When a concession is
extended, it is always open to the Government to introduce such
conditions as they deem fit for extending the benefit of concession.
It is in the exercise of that power, the Government has prescribed
that the legal heir will be given appointment only if the death has
occurred before the deceased had attained the age of 65 years.
This being purely a matter of concession, the petitioner cannot
contend that any of the legal rights of the deceased or the legal
representative has been violated by this condition. On the basis of
this, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
Therefore, the writ petition fails, and is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg