NIRANJAN SINGH SAINI v. STATE OF H. P. — 1999 DIGILAW 241 (HP)

JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.: This writ petition has been filed by Shri Niranjan Singh seeking to quash show cause notice dated 23.9.1995 of Registrar (Deputy Commissioner) Sinmour (Annexure P- 4; order dated 31.10.1995 (Annexure P-6); office order dated 8.11.1995 of the Registrar (Annexure P-7); order dated 9.6.1997 of the Registrar (Licencing) Authority Sirmour District Nahan (Annexure P-10); order dated 27.6.97 issued by Registrar, Sirmour (Annexure P-l 1) and consequential order in Misc. Appeal No. 153/97 dated 13.10.1997 (Annexure P-13) recorded by Commissioner, Shimla Division being wrong, illegal, arbitrary, in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and against the letter and spirit of the Himachal Pradesh Document Writer Licencing Rules, 1971 as well as against the principles of natural justice. 2. The Inspector General of Registration, Himachal Pradesh under Section 16 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 with the approval of the Govt. of H.P. has framed the Himachal Pradesh Document Writers Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to the Rules). The petitioner alleged to have qualified the examination held by the Competent Authority and was granted Licence No. 1/1988 under the Rules and since 1988 he was working as Document Writer at Paonta Sahib. The petitioner alleged that on or about 25.8.1995 Sub Registrar, Paonta Sahib-respondent No.3 lodged a written complaint to the Registrar (Deputy Commissioner) - respondent No.2 Sinmour District requesting respondent No.2 to cancel the licence of the petitioner. Shri Devinder Singh Sub Registrar (Tehsildar), Paonta Sahib-respondent No.4 in the capacity of Sub Registrar on 11.8.1995 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, a copy of which has been filed with the writ petition and marked Annexure P-2 directing the petitioner to file reply to the show cause notice before 16.8.1995, which according to the petitioner was filed by him on 14.8.1995. In his reply, the stand of the petitioner was that the Document Writers are under the control and supervision of the Licencing Authority and therefore, show cause notice Annexure P-2 dated 11.8.1995 was without jurisdiction. Thereafter, 2na respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner dated 23.9.1995, a copy of the same is filed as Annexure P-4 to the writ petition asking the petitioner to explain the reason within 15 days failing which his licence would be cancelled. Thereafter, 2na respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner dated 23.9.1995, a copy of the same is filed as Annexure P-4 to the writ petition asking the petitioner to explain the reason within 15 days failing which his licence would be cancelled. The petitioner stated that he submitted his reply on 4.10.1995 to the show cause notice and his defence was that the show cause notice was vague and it did not disclose specific particulars of alleged violations of the Rules. It was also submitted in the reply by the petitioner that respondent No3 who was posted at Kamrao in the year 1990, was not having good relations with the petitioner since then and had illegally issued the show cause notice to the petitioner for this reason. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 31.10.95 suspended the licence of the petitioner and appointed Shri B. R. Bhalaik, Assistant Commissioner to Deputy Commissioner, Nahan to hold enquiry and to submit a report within 15 days. On the basis of the order dated 31.10.95 respondent No. 2 issued office order dated 8.11.95 Annexure P-7 whereby the petitioners Document Writer licence was cancelled till further orders. 3. The petitioner alleged to have filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 2214/95 in this Court on 5.11.95 and interim direction was issued by the Court directing the respondents 1 to 3 not to pass final order, if not already passed. The petitioner on 27.12.96 through proper channel alleged to have applied for renewal of his licence of Document Writer but the same was turned down by respondent No.4 in the capacity of respondent No.3 vide letter dated 31.12.96, a copy thereof has been filed on record and marked Annexure P-8. This Court in the interim application filed with the earlier writ petition had permitted the petitioner to work as Document Writer till further orders. The writ petition No. 2214/95 was finally decided on 7.4.97 with the directions that the concerned authority, namely, Licencing Authority Sirmour at Nahan shall hear the petitioner before passing a final order on the enquiry report and if the petitioner was aggrieved by such order it was open to him to file an appeal against such order under Rule 17 of the Rules to the appropriate authority, and consequently the interim order was vacated. The petitioner also stated that respondent No.2 relied upon the report of respondent No.3 vide which the petitioner was held guilty of charging excess amounts for writing of the documents, wrong drafting as well as mis-conduct and passed the order of suspension of his licence on 9.6.97 as against the cancellation. Again vide office order dated 27.6.97 respondent No.2 declined to renew the Licence No. 1/1988 of the petitioner and ordered its cancellation with immediate effect. Against the order of cancellation, the petitioner filed a Misc. Appeal No. 153/97 before the Commissioner Shimla Division who dismissed his appeal vide order dated 13.10.97, a copy of which was filed as Annexure P-13 upholding the order of the Registrar. The petitioner has challenged the above noticed orders in this writ petition, inter alia, on the grounds that the show cause notice Annexure P-4 is vague, no specific instance of defective documents or higher charges alleged to have been charged by the petitioner have been given in the show cause notice nor the show cause notice disclosed specific particulars of alleged violations of the Rules. The respondent No.4 instead of proceeding in accordance with law did not hesitate to turn down the request of the petitioner for renewal of his licence even though he had no jurisdiction to reject the request of the petitioner. The petitioner also alleged that respondent No.2 relied upon the report of Sub Registrar, Paonta Sahib vide which the petitioner was held guilty for excess charging of amount of documents, drafting and also for misconduct and that not time limit was fixed by the Competent Authority in Annexure P-7 nor in Annexure P-JO for suspension of the licence of the petitioner and since the valuable n^ of the petitioner to work as Document Writer were involved, respondent No.2 has net given reasonable opportunity to him in the proceedings in order to defend himself and respondent No.2 in the order dated 9.6.1997 felt it proper to suspend the licence as against cancellation. According to the petitioner on the basis of allegations against his respondent No.2 was satisfied to suspend the licence but not to cancel his licence and thereafter vide order dated 27.6.97 Annexure P-11 instead of renewal of the licence of the petitioner, 2nd respondent ordered its cancellation with immediate effect and, thus the petitioner has been condemned twice for the same allegations. The petitioner challenged the order of the Appellate Authority on the ground that it has been passed mechanically without proper appreciation of the material on record nor any evidence led by the parties was discussed therein. 4. In their counter, filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 on the affidavit of Mr.s Nisha Singh, Registrar (Deputy Commissioner), Sirmour it has been admitted that respondent No.4 had worked as Naib Tehsildar (Sub-Registrar) at Kamrao in the year 1990 but it is submitted that there is nothing on record of the office of respondent No.2 that the petitioner and respondent No.4 who at the time of cancellation of the licence of the petitioner was posted as Sub Registrar, Paonta Sahib and respondent No.3 had any differences during the relevant point of time. It has been denied that the process of cancellation of Document Writers licence of the petitioner was initiated by respondent No,3 as a sequel to the past differences with him. The respondents stated that show cause notice issued to the petitioner by respondent No.3 was for explaining the lapes which had come to the notice of respondent No.3 in his capacity as Sub Registrar Paonta Sahib where the petitioner was practicing as Document Writer. The respondent also stated that in the show cause notice dated 11.8.95 served upon the petitioner specific instances had been given of higher charges of the amounts by him then proscribed under the Rules. The respondents have stated that respondent No.2 in the capacity of Registrar has acted in accordance with the procedure and the enquiry was got conducted from the Asstt. Commissioner based on specific charges i.e. over charging of fee of the document etc. and while passing the order of cancellation of the licence of the petitioner, respondent No.2 considered the evidence and material on record. The respondents further submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner were under investigation at the time when he applied for renewal of his licence and, therefore no order was passed on his application for renewal of the licence. Thus, the respondents have defended their action in their counter affidavit. No separate reply has been filed by respondent No.4 and his reply was that he adopted the reply which had been filed by Registrar, District Sirmour on his behalf as well. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to the counter of the respondents. 5. Thus, the respondents have defended their action in their counter affidavit. No separate reply has been filed by respondent No.4 and his reply was that he adopted the reply which had been filed by Registrar, District Sirmour on his behalf as well. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to the counter of the respondents. 5. We have heard Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sajay Karo.1, learned Advocate General for the respondents. Both the learned counsel have made their submissions based upon the averments made in the writ petition and the counter affidavit. Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned Senior Advocate contended that in the show cause notice Annexure P-4 no specific instances of charging higher amount of writing the document by the petitioner have bene given by the respondents nor specific defective documents have been mentioned being written by the petitioner. He next contended that on the basis of the complaint made by 3rd and 4th respondents to 2nd respondent, action was taken against the petitioner without giving him nay opportunity and his licence was only suspended as against cancellation, therefore, it shall be presumbed that no ground was found by the 2nd respondent for cancellation bf the licence of the petitioner and therefore only suspension order was passed by the Competent Authority after satisfying itself, he contended that as valuable right of the petitioner to work as Document Writer was involved, respondent No.2 has not given reasonable opportunity to him to defend himself before the order of cancellation of his licence was passed and, therefore, show cause notice, order of suspension and subsequent order of cancellation of the licence of the petitioner deserve to the set aside. He next contended that once the petitioner applied for the renewal of the licence, it was the duty of the Competent Authority to have passed order on his renewal application but instead of doing so, the petitioners licence was cancelled for the alleged mis-conduct which was never committed by the petitioner. Lastly, the learned counsel by way of alternative plea contended that the order of cancellation of the licence is grossly excessive and the petitioner deserves to be dealt with leniently and, therefore some other alternative lesser penalty should have been awarded by the Competent Authority. 6. Lastly, the learned counsel by way of alternative plea contended that the order of cancellation of the licence is grossly excessive and the petitioner deserves to be dealt with leniently and, therefore some other alternative lesser penalty should have been awarded by the Competent Authority. 6. per contra, the learned Advocate General contended that the proceedings were initiated by the respondents against the petitioner strictly in accordance with the rules and the petitioner was given enough opportunity at every stage to defend his case and after analysing the entire material on record the Competent Authorities have passed by various orders. He next contended that the Appellate Authority has also rendered the order on sound appreciation of the entire material on record and this Court while exercising its extra ordinary jurisdiction will not interfere in the. orders of the authorities below unless these are found to be grossly perverse, arbitrary or in violation of the mandatory provisions of law or natural justice. 7. We have given our thoughtful considerations to the rival contentions of the learned counsel on both sides and examined the material placed on record,. Under the Rules the validity of Document Writers licence shall be till 31st December of the year in which the same is issued and shall be renewable on payment of fee as contained in Rule 12. Rule 16 prescribes for penalty for breach of conditions of licence, whereas Rule 17 empowers the authorities to hear the appeal against any order of the Registrar. The first show cause notice marked Annexure P-2 dated 11.8.1995 was issued by respondent No.3 to the petitioner under Rule 14 (P) where under the petitioner was asked to furnish to the licencing authority or any officer of the Registration Department truly and correctly whatever information was called for from him and he was also asked to explain as to why he was over charging for writing documents against the Rules. In that show cause notice name of one Shri Guman Singh resident of village Thana Tehsil Kamrau has been mentioned who complained to the 3rd respondent in writing that the petitioner had charged Rs.100/- for writing an agreement and Rs.59/- for writing documents Sr. Nos. 308/309/95 i.e. one sale deed and one affidavit whereas in the receipt issued by the petitioner for writing these two documents Rs.27/- was charged for drafting and Rs.32/- for typing charges. Nos. 308/309/95 i.e. one sale deed and one affidavit whereas in the receipt issued by the petitioner for writing these two documents Rs.27/- was charged for drafting and Rs.32/- for typing charges. The petitioner was asked that under Rule 13 of the Rules no such amount was specified. The petitioner was directed to explain his position before 16.8.95 failing which his case for cancellation of licence would be submitted to the Registrar. In response to the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted a reply on 14.8.91, a copy of which has been placed on record and marked Annexure P-3. Again on 23.9.95 the Registrar District Sirmour issued show cause notice Annexure P-4 to the petitioner intimating him that |t was brought to his notice by Tehsildar Paonta Sahib that the petitioner was not working in accordance with Document Writer Rules and the documents written by him were defective and that he has also charging from the public for writing documents excess amount than the fixed rates and issued the receipt for less amount to the public. It was also found mentioned in that show cause notice that the common man was suffering a lot due to over charging and the petitioner was working in violation of Document Writer Rules. In additional to this specific charge of over charging of the amount than the fixed rates, the petitioner was also asked to explain as to why he had been violating the orders of the Tehsidar and thus his conduct was in vontravention of Rules 14(C) and 14(P) of the Rules. The petitioner has categorically asked to explain his position within 15 days for the issue of the show cause and in default thereof his licence would be cancelled. It appears that the petitioner submitted his reply dated 4.10.95 marked Annexure P-5 in which under para-5 he stated that Shri Kanwar Devender Singh, Tehsildar Paonta Sahib respondent No. 4 has no regard towards the Document Writer and he used to behave as "THANEDAR" in his office. The petitioner also stated that the Tehsildar, Paonta Sahib has not been maintaining good relations with him since 1990 when he was posted as Naib Tehsildar at Kamrau. The petitioner also stated that the Tehsildar, Paonta Sahib has not been maintaining good relations with him since 1990 when he was posted as Naib Tehsildar at Kamrau. We may at this stage notice that the personal allegations of malafide or inimical relations between the petitioner and respondent No.4 have not been substantiated by the petitioner in this writ petition nor they have been seriously projected by the learned counsel in his submission, therefore, we do not propose to deal further with the ground of personal allegations levelled by him in the in the writ petition against respondent No.4. 8. Respondent No.2 by office order dated 31.10.95 marked Annexure P- 6 on receipt of the complaint submitted to him by respondent No.3, and the reply to the show cause notice has examined the entire matter and also perused the record and thereafter passed order suspending the licence of the petitioner and appointed Shri B.R. Bhalaik AC to Deputy Commissioner to hold enquiry and submit his report within 15 days. Again on 8.11.95 the 2nd respondent vide office order marked Annexure P-7 in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Rule 16 of the Rules suspended the licence of the petitioner from 31.10.95 until further orders and appointed Shri B. R. Bhalaik, Assistant Commissioner as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the matter and submit his report within 15 days. Against the order of suspension, the petitioner filed CWP. No. 2214/ 95 in which interim order was passed by the Court and lateron on appearance of the opposite party the interim order was modified on 4.7.96 to the extent that the Enquiry Officer was allowed to continue with the enquiry initiated against the petitioner and enquiry report may be prepared but the final order will not be passed by the Competent Authority without seeking permission of the court. The petitioner was also permitted to work as Document Writer till further orders. Thereafter, the enquiry against the petitioner had been completed by the Enquiry Officer and a copy of the enquiry report had been produced before the Court. The petitioner was also permitted to work as Document Writer till further orders. Thereafter, the enquiry against the petitioner had been completed by the Enquiry Officer and a copy of the enquiry report had been produced before the Court. The Court on 7.4.97 dismissed the writ petition with a direction to the concerned authorities namely, Licencing Authority Sirmour at Nahan to hear the petitioner before passing the final order and if the petitioner was aggrieved by his order it was open to him to file an appeal against such order under Rule 17 of the H.P. Document Writers Licencing Rules, 1971 to the appropriate authority. The interim order was vacated by the Court. 9. The Deputy Commissioner Sirmour District at Nahan by order dated 13.1.97 marked Annexure P-9 with reference to the letter of the Sub-Registrar, Paonta Sahib directed the latter to permit the petitioner to continue working as Document Writer, Panota Sahib as per the order dated 4.7.96 of the High Court. After the disposal of the writ petition the Registrar (Licencing Authority) Sirmour District Nahan passed order dated 9.6.95 marked Annexure P-10 pursuant to the direction of the Court in CWP No. 2214/95 and the petitioner was also personally afforded an opportunity to present his case. The order finds stated that the enquiry entrusted to Asstt. Commissioner Sirmour had also been perused and in the said enquiry the allegation of bias attitude against the petitioner on behalf of 3rd respondent has not been found to be true. In the enquiry report it was fond stated that as per Section 13(V) or Licencing Rules, the Document Writer could not charge more than Rs.10/- per copy whereas per evidence on record it has been established that the petitioner has been charging I the fee over and above the prescribed under the Rules. The petitioner was I personally heard by the 2nd respondent as reflected in his order and on the basis of the material on record and also submissions made by the petitioner in person, the petitioner could not produce any cogent and convincing evidence to falsify or impeach the evidence collected during the enwuiry. The 2nd respondent in his order noticed that the petitioner had used in his reply to the show cause notice wrong language against the 3rd respondent and also that the petitioner was over charging from the public who came to him for document presentation etc. The 2nd respondent in his order noticed that the petitioner had used in his reply to the show cause notice wrong language against the 3rd respondent and also that the petitioner was over charging from the public who came to him for document presentation etc. and that this conduct of the petitioner should not and could not be encouraged. Consequently, the representation of the petitioner came to be rejected and it was kept open for him to file an appropriate appeal before the authority as per the appropriate appeal before the authority as per the directions of the Court. In pursuant to the order of this Court dated 7.4.97 the 2nd respondent before passing the final order heard the petitioner personally on 9.6.97 and the 2nd respondent did not find any ground for renewal of the licence applied for by the petitioner passed order of cancellation under Rule f 14(1) of the Rules. The application filed by the petitioner for renewal of his licence could not be decided earlier by the Competent Authority because the matter was pending under enquiry before the enquiry officer and also in this Court and by way of interim order the petitioner was allowed to continue working as Document Writer and on the basis of the order of the Court the petitioner worked as such. After the disposal of the writ petition and vacation of interim stay, the Registrar (Licencing Authority) proceeded further in the matter and passed the order of cancellation of the licence. Against the order of cancellation the petitioner filed an appeal Annexure P-12 before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division, Appellate Authority under the Rules. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 13.10.97 marked Annexure P-13 after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and requisitioning the record of Deputy Commissioner, Sirmour considered all the submissions of the petitioner and found his appeal without merit resulting in its dismissal. Similar and identical grounds have been taken by the petitioner in this writ petition that appeared to have been taken by him in his ground of appeal and considered by the Appellate Authority while rejecting his appeal. 10. Considering the entire material on record in its right perspective discussed above, we find that none of the grievance of the petitioner merits our acceptance. 10. Considering the entire material on record in its right perspective discussed above, we find that none of the grievance of the petitioner merits our acceptance. The petitioner has been given full opportunity at every stage by the Competent Authorities before any adverse order came to be passed against him. he has submitted detailed replies to the show cause notices issued by the Competent Authorities and thereafter he was personally heard by the Registrar before ordering the suspension of his licence and thereafter on the directions of the Court before the order of cancellation of his licence was passed. The Registrar appointed an Enquiry Officer who submitted his report and placed the same before this Court in the earlier petition filed by the petitioner and that report was taken on record by the Court and thereafter the writ petition was dismissed directing the Licencing Authority to hear the petitioner before taking any further action against him after suspension of his licence and thereafter the Registrar has given personal hearing to the petitioner and passed order of cancellation of his licence after giving full opportunity to him. The earlier order of suspension of the licence appears to have been assed as interim order on the basis proper enquiry was got conducted by the 2nd respondent by appointing Asstt. Commissioner who conducted proper enquiry and submitted his report to the 2nd respondent. The petitioner cannot claim and urge that the 2nd respondent passed the order of cancellation of his licence on the basis of the complaint made by the 3rd respondent whereas, in fact, from the material placed on record the 2nd respondent had ordered proper enquiry and on receipt of the report of the Enquiry Officer petitioner was given adequate opportunity to defend himself and thereafter considering the entire material on record, the 2nd respondent passed the order of cancellation of the licence of the petitioner. The order of the Registrar came to be assailed by the petitioner by way of a statutory appeal. The Appellate Authority too considered all the submissions of the petitioner and other material on record who found the order of cancellation of the licence passed by the Competent Authority legal and valid and dismissed the appeal. The order of the Registrar came to be assailed by the petitioner by way of a statutory appeal. The Appellate Authority too considered all the submissions of the petitioner and other material on record who found the order of cancellation of the licence passed by the Competent Authority legal and valid and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner has been given full opportunity at every stage by every Competent Authorities who have got jurisdiction to take actions against the petitioner under the Rules and it was in the interest of public at large that the petitioner was not found entitled to the grant of licence as a Document Writer. The allegations proved against the petitioner are quite serious and, therefore, we are not incline to accept the last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner should be dealt with leniently. It is by now well settled that this Court while exercising the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, will not assume to dis-charge the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court over the adequcy or inadequcy of penalty imposed by the Competent Authority which has been upheld by the Appellate Authority in a statutory appeal. We find to cogent reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the authorities below in their respective orders which have been passed strictly in accordance with the statutory Rules and also after affording reasonable opportunities to the petitioner and, therefore the orders impugned call for no interference in these proceedings. All the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not accept our merit and are not tenable. 11. No other point has been urged by the learned counsel on either side. 12. For the above-stated reasons and discussions, the writ petition is without merit and shall stand dismissed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case we leave the parties to bear their own costs.