Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010277742025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7255/2025 FAKARUDDIN S/O- FAIZUDDIN, VILL.- RAMPUR SATRA, P.O. KADAMANI, P.S. BATADRABA, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER NAGAON (MAGISTRACY BRANCH) NAGAON. 3:THE ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE NAGAON. 4:THE MANAGER E-STAMP STOCK HOLDING ULUBARI BRANCH GUWAHATI PIN- 781007 KAMRUP METRO ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. K DEVI, N O POMONG Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MS. P.R. MAHANTA, SC, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPT., (R-1),MS. D BORA(R4),MR. MASUM ALAM(R4),MR B M DEKA(R4) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 05.08.2026 Considering the facts and circumstances involved and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition has been taken up for disposal at the admission stage. 2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner is running the business of Stamp Vendor since 2018 in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon, with Licence No. 08/2018, dated 29.09.2018. The said licence was renewed on 26.07.2023 and at that stage, there was a shift from manual to e-mode. The petitioner had also accordingly made the necessary changes and was carrying out the business in the e-format. However, on 06.05.2025, the petitioner had lost some blank e-stamp papers along with other belongings for which an Ejahar was lodged on 09.07.2025. However, the account of the petitioner has not been allowed to be operated in spite of the application made by the petitioner on 19.07.2025. It is the case of the petitioner that his account has been illegally suspended by the authorities through which he was running the business of sale of e-stamp. 3. I have heard Ms. K. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Satyajit Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, Assam. I have also heard Ms. U. Das, learned State Counsel, Assam as well as Shri B.M. Deka, learned counsel for the contesting respondent no. 4. 4. Ms. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no blemish in the business run by the petitioner on the strength of licence issued in the year 2018. She has also submitted that there was due diligence exercised by the Page No.# 3/4 petitioner towards the loss of blank e-stamp paper for which an FIR was lodged on 09.07.2025. The delay in lodging the FIR has also been explained by the learned counsel. It is submitted that the suspension of the account has been done without any notice and without following any procedure and the petitioner has been put to great prejudice and hardships. 5. On the other hand, Shri Deka, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has submitted that there were many anomalies in the business of the petitioner after shifting made to e-mode. He has also raised objection on the maintainability of the writ petition as the parties are governed by an agreement and therefore, a writ petition would not lie. On the facts, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has submitted that several attempts were made to reach out to the petitioner for which emails were issued which were not responded to. He has submitted that under those facts and circumstances, no interference may be made by this Court. 6. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials on record carefully examined. 7. It is not in dispute that pursuant to a licence issued in the year 2018 by the competent authority, the petitioner was running the business of stamp vending. The dispute had arisen from an incident when the petitioner had allegedly lost certain blank e-stamp papers on 06.05.2025 for which, an FIR was lodged on 09.07.2025. Though it appears that there was no promptitude in lodging the FIR, the learned counsel has given certain explanations. On the aspect that several emails have been made to the petitioner as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, the petitioner has replied that no such emails were received by him. Though the aforesaid aspect would be within the realm of disputed questions of fact, it transpires that no procedure, as such was adopted for discontinuing/ suspension of the account Page No.# 4/4 of the petitioner. Any action taken by the authority having a civil consequence would necessarily require an adequate opportunity to be granted and a proceeding be held in accordance with law. In the instant case, it, however, appears that the petitioner had submitted an application on 19.07.2025 which is yet to be considered. 8. Be that as it may, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation bringing on records all the grounds which, if done within a period of 15 days, is to be considered by the respondent no. 4. 9. At this stage, Shri Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department has clarified that the representation is required to be presented before the District Commissioner, Nagaon, who, in turn would forward the same to the DLR and ultimately, the DLR would forward the same to the respondent no. 4. 10. It is needless to state that in such consideration, the petitioner is required to be given a hearing and the respondent no. 4 would take an appropriate decision on the matter strictly in accordance with law. The decision taken is required to be communicated to the petitioner in writing. 11. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of in the manner indicated above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant