S. R. NAYAK. J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ Appeal, by the Inspector general of Registration and Stamps, Andhra pradesh, Hyderabad, is directed against the order of the learned single Judge da tod 14-8-2000 in W. P. No. 4134 of 1994. Andhra pradesh State Document Writer s association (Regd), the 1st respondent herein filed the above writ petition praying for the following relief:"petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus under art. 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the proceedings of the respondent bearing No. DW/34770/93 dated 15-12-1993 in so far it prohibited the entry of a document writer under any circumstances into the compound of the office of the Sub-Registrar or on its veranda as mentioned in para 5 of the said proceedings as arbitrary, illegal, without authority of law and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of India, by permitting the petitioners to attend the office of sub-Registrars for legitimate purposes in discharge of their duties as document writers. "the Inspector General, Registration and stamps, Andhra Pradesh vide para (5) of the impugned order dated 15-12-1993 has directed"5. Under any circumstances the document Writers shall not be allowed in the compound of the Sub-Registrar s office or on the verandas of the office. If the Sub-Registrar s office is provided with compound wall, they should be allowed to do their profession beyond such compound wall. If there is no compound wall, action shall be taken to carry on their profession far away (from the office ). "the case of the petitioner-association is that the ban imposed by the Inspector General on the entry of the document writers is uncalled for, unjustified as well as it would violate their rights under Article 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner-association, it is absolutely necessary for the document writers, as part of their public duty, to approach the Sub- registrars from time to time to collect correct market values of the properties for chargeability of stamp duties. According to the petitioner-association, it is absolutely necessary for the document writers, as part of their public duty, to approach the Sub- registrars from time to time to collect correct market values of the properties for chargeability of stamp duties. It also states that Form-F prescribed under Rule 213 of the A. P. Rules under the Registration Act, 1908, (for short the rules ), provides for handling the monies of the clients for purchase of stamp papers and other papers and therefore, it becomes necessary for the document writers to approach the Sub- registrar, who is ex-officio stamp vendor for purchase of higher denomination stamps. To put the case of the petitioner- stamp vendors, in nutshell, is that in performance of their duty as stamp vendors, it becomes absolutely necessary for them to approach the Sub-Registrars and therefore, it becomes necessary to enter into the office of the Sub-Registrar, and such a right of entry cannot be taken away by the inspector General of Stamps. It is also contended that the Inspector General of stamps lacks power to impose such ban. ( 2 ) THE writ petition was opposed by the Inspector General of Stamps by filing a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is contended that the document writers have no role to play at the time of registration; their entry into the office of the sub-Registrar is not necessary for the purpose of registration of a document. On the other hand, he contends that the document writers cannot appear before the sub-Registrar as identifying witnesses of anybody connected with the registration of any document nor they take delivery of any registered document from the registering officer nor present any application for certified copy or extracts of a registered document. Dealing with the malpractices of the document writers, the Inspector General of Stamps has stated:"6. . . . . IN actual practice, several instances have come to the notice of the 1st respondent, through various agencies such as Anti-Corruption bureau, the Vigilance and enforcement Department etc. , highlighting the mal-practices indulged in by the Document Writers. While the Document Writers are virtually barred from acting as touts, brokers etc. . . . . IN actual practice, several instances have come to the notice of the 1st respondent, through various agencies such as Anti-Corruption bureau, the Vigilance and enforcement Department etc. , highlighting the mal-practices indulged in by the Document Writers. While the Document Writers are virtually barred from acting as touts, brokers etc. , and also from collecting illegal money from the parties in the name of the office, the surprise checks conducted by the Anti-Corruption bureau on a number of Sub-Registry offices in the State revealed that huge monies were unauthorisedly collected by the Document Writers giving an impression that they are directly involved in registration. If they are allowed inside the premises, it lends scope for a false claim that they are associated with registration and are acting as touts which the rules prohibit. On such occasions, they were found in possession of unauthorised money for which they could not give any satisfactory explanation to the authorities, except claiming that the amounts were collected on behalf of registration Offices. 7. Further it is relevant to mention here a few cases: (1) During the surprise check on s. R. O. , Doodbowli on 14-6-1991, the Anti Corruption Bureau officials found Rs. 7,247. 00 in the possession of Sri Mujeeb Ahmed khan, Document Writer for which he failed to explain. He was found in front of the office at the time of surprise check, and consequently his licence was cancelled after observing due procedure. (2) Sri V. Brahma Redd, D. W. attached to the S. R. O. , Bodhan (Nizamabad District) was found within the office premises when the a. C. B. , made a surprise visit to the office on 24-9-1992. The Document writer was in possession or rs. 2,800/- which was regarded as unauthorised amount, collected from the parties. (3) When the A. C. B, officials visited sub-Registrar office, Asifabad (Adilabad District) on 27-5-1993, they found Sri K. Veera Swamy, d. W. in the office premises along with an amount of Rs. 558. 00 for which the Document Writer could not give any satisfactory reasons. (4) Sri N. Tukaram, D. W. , was found with an amount of Rs. 2,370/- during the surprise check of Anti- corruption Bureau officials on r. O. , (OB) Machilipatnam on 31-5-1993. As the said amount was found to be unauthorised, his licence was cancelled after observing due procedure. (4) Sri N. Tukaram, D. W. , was found with an amount of Rs. 2,370/- during the surprise check of Anti- corruption Bureau officials on r. O. , (OB) Machilipatnam on 31-5-1993. As the said amount was found to be unauthorised, his licence was cancelled after observing due procedure. (5) Sri A. Satyanarayana Babu, D. W. , attached to S. R. O. , Chilakaluripet (Narasaraopet Regn. District) was found in possession of Rs. 1,470/- when the A. C. B. , paid a surprise visit to the above office on 13-3-90. Since he could not give satisfactory reasons for the possession of the amount, his licence was cancelled. 8. Apart from the above irregularities a case of serious magnitude has recently been discovered in West godavari District where, one sri G. V. Subrahmanyeswara Rao, document Writer attached to Sub- registrar Officer, Kovvur had indulged in the creation of spurious sale deeds by using fictitious seals and rubber stamps of the S. R. O. , thereby running a parallel office. 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I submit that after taking all the above cases into consideration, it was felt expedient in public interest to lessen the scope of interference of the document Writers in connection with the registration of documents. Accordingly, the entry of the D. Ws into Registration Offices was barred by issuing suitable instructions in procgs. No. DWs/34770/93, dated 15-12-1993. The said instructions are necessary in order to prevent the D. Ws from indulging in various malpractices such as acting as touts and middlemen. . . . . . " ( 3 ) PARA (5) of the impugned order dated 15-12-1993 issued by the Inspector General, registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh, contains two prohibitions viz. , (i) the document writers shall not be allowed in the compound of the Sub-Registrar s office or on the verandas of the Sub-Registrar s office, and (ii) the document writers shall not be allowed to do their profession within the compound wall, if there is compound wall, and if there is no compound wall, the document writers shall carry on their profession far away from the office of the sub-Registrar. ( 4 ) THE first contention of the petitioner is that the direction that the document writers shall not carry on their profession within the compound wall of the sub-registrar s office violates the fundamental right guaranteed to them under Article 19 (1) (g) of the constitution. Article 19 (1) (g) guarantees freedom of profession, trade, business to citizens. This freedom means that every citizen has the right to choose his own employment or take up any trade or calling, subject only to the limits as may be imposed by the State in the interests of the public welfare, and the other grounds mentioned in Clause (6 ). The rights protected by article 19 (1) are not absolute, but qualified. The qualifications are stated in clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19. The fundamental rights guaranteed in Article 19 (1) (a) to (g) are, therefore, to be read along with the said qualifications. Even the rights guaranteed under the C. onstitutions of the other civilised countries are not absolute, but are read subject to the implied limitations on them. Those implied limitations are made explicit by clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 of our Constitution. The right guaranteed by clause (g) of Article 19 (1) is the natural right to enter into or carry on any trade, profession or calling which every person has, as the member of a civilised society, anterior to and independent of any legislation or grant by the State. However, there is no fundamental right of a citizen to carry on business wherever he chooses, e. g. , on the street or on anybody s property or at any time, and his right must be subject to any reasonable restriction imposed by the executive in the interest of public convenience. In other words, a document writer has no legal right, let alone a fundamental right, to carry on his profession or business within the compound of the Sub-Registrar s office. In other words, a document writer has no legal right, let alone a fundamental right, to carry on his profession or business within the compound of the Sub-Registrar s office. It is trite that a document writer has no right to carry on his business within the compound of the Sub-Registrar s office, save with the permission of the concerned authority of the state, This position is well settled by the judgments of the Apex Court in Chint Ram ram Chand v. State of Punjab Pyare Lal v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, Ibrahim t. B. v. R. T. A. , Krishna Kumar Manila v. State of J and K, to cite a few. ( 5 ) IN Mohd. Yasin v. District Magistral, the petitioner therein was a petition-writer who held a licence issued by the Collector of kanpur which permitted him to exercise his profession within the Collectorate at kanpur. For that licence the petitioner made a quarterly payment of five rupees. Suspicion arose that the petitioner had been responsible for the typing of an anonymous letter addressed to the District and Sessions judge, Kanpur. An enquiry of some kind was held and on the 1st September, 1953, the petitioner s licence as petition-writer was cancelled by an order which reads as follows:"the typing licence No. 17 issued to sri Mohammad Yasin, a typist of the collectorate Court Compound, kanpur, has been cancelled for a period of five years with effect from 26-8-1953 for having worked in an objectionable manner. No application or papers written by him should be entertained in any court". ( 6 ) THE petitioner filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court seeking a Writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the above order of the 1st September, 1953. The petitioner clalmed that he had a fundamental right to carry on his profession as petition-writer in the Collectorate compound and his licence could be cancelled only upon proof of the contravention of one of the conditions subject to which it was issued. Mootham, J, speaking for the Bench held:"the petitioner s case is I think wholly distinguishable from that of a person who is required by law to obtain a licence as a condition of carrying on his business or profession at all. Mootham, J, speaking for the Bench held:"the petitioner s case is I think wholly distinguishable from that of a person who is required by law to obtain a licence as a condition of carrying on his business or profession at all. Where the law lays down that a particular occupation cannot be carried on save under a licence, then the withdrawal of a licence has the obvious consequences of wholly preventing the person concerned from carrying on that business, and the question may very well arise whether there has been contravention of the provisions of article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. That appears to me very far from the position in the present case in which it is not in dispute that the petitioner is free to carry on his occupation in any place other than in the Collectorate. The petitioner has, in my opinion, no right to carry on his business in the collectorate compound save with the permission of the Collector, and if that permission is withdrawn the petitioner may have a grievance, but I cannot see that he has any legal remedy unless it can be founded on breach of contract. The remedy for breach of contract is of course by way of suit. The petitioner must satisfy this court that he has a legal right and that there has been an infringement of that right; this in my opinion he has failed to do. " ( 7 ) SAPRU, J. while concurring with the opinion of Mootham, J. and dealing with the contention that the petitioner had a fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution to carry on his business, trade or profession and that right had been interfered with by the impugned order, held:"before the petitioner can come to this court for relief under Article 226 of the constitution, it is incumbent on him to show that he has a legal right and that there has been an infringement of that legal right. In this case I can see no infringement of any legal right. The petitioner has not been able to establish what legal right he had to the unrestricted use of the Collectorate compound for working as a petition- writer. There is no analogy between this case and that of a person who cannot carry on his profession, trade or business at all without a licence. The petitioner has not been able to establish what legal right he had to the unrestricted use of the Collectorate compound for working as a petition- writer. There is no analogy between this case and that of a person who cannot carry on his profession, trade or business at all without a licence. The cancellation of a licence in a case of that nature would deprive a person of the means of his livelihood. In this case, the cancellation of the licence involves no such consequences for it is still open to the petitioner to carry on his business elsewhere than in the collectorate compound. No person has a right to carry on his profession, business or trade in the premises of some other person and it strikes me, therefore, that the argument which has been advanced by Mr. Beg has no force". ( 8 ) WHILE a citizen has a fundamental right to carry on a trade or business, he has no fundamental right to insist upon the government or any other individual for doing business with him. Similarly, an individual has no fundamental right to carry on the trade or business on a property belonging to the State unless there is a contract between the State and himself permitting him to carry on business or trade on the property of the Government. In the instant case, the properties enclosed within the compound walls of the Sub-Registrars offices are the properties of the State. It is not the case of the document writers that there exist contracts between them and the state as per which they are entitled to carry on their profession within the compound of the Sub-Registrars offices. If that is the factual position, the right of ownership exercised by the State and State authorities prohibiting the document writers from practising their profession within the enclosures of the government properties would not violate the fundamental right guaranteed to the document writers under article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner- association is not in a position to demonstrate the right of the document writers to carry on their profession within the compound of the Sub-Registrar s office with reference to any provisions of the constitution or the Statute or any contract. The learned counsel for the petitioner- association is not in a position to demonstrate the right of the document writers to carry on their profession within the compound of the Sub-Registrar s office with reference to any provisions of the constitution or the Statute or any contract. Therefore, it is well within the power of the state authorities to prohibit the document writers from carrying on their business or profession inside the compound wall of the sub-Registrars offices. Therefore, the inspector General of Registration and stamps, in directing the document writers to carry on their profession outside the compound wall of the Sub-Registrar s office, has not violated any of the rights of the document writers much less fundamental rights guaranteed to them under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of india. ( 9 ) THIS takes us to the second contention of the writ petitioner that the direction of the Inspector General, Registration and stamps that the document writers shall not be allowed in the compound of the Sub- registrar s Office or on the verandahs of the office is totally arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and the general rights of locomotion of the document writers to have access to the office of the Sub-Registrar emanating from the freedom of person guaranteed under the constitution. Article 19 is the sum total of the common civil liberties which the citizens in general ought to enjoy. Article 19 deals only with certain rights, which in their origin and inception are attributes of the freedom of the person but being of great importance are regarded as specific and independent rights. Article 19 does not deal with the freedom of the person as such. This article uses the expression "freedom" and mentions the several forms and aspects of it which are secured in individuals together with the limitations that could be placed upon them in the general interests of the society. Article 19 presupposes that the citizens to whom the possession of these fundamental rights are secured retain the substratum of personal freedom on which alone the enjoyment of these rights necessarily rests. Article 19 presupposes that the citizens to whom the possession of these fundamental rights are secured retain the substratum of personal freedom on which alone the enjoyment of these rights necessarily rests. Even assuming that a right is not specifically named in clause (1) of ; article 19, the same may yet be a fundamental right, covered by Clause (1), if the same be an integral part or partakes of the basic nature and character as that of any fundamental right named therein. However, each activity which facilitates the exercise of a named fundamental right may not be necessarily comprehended in that fundamental right nor can it be regarded as such merely because it may not be possible to otherwise effectively exercise that fundamental right. In such cases, the test to apply is whether the right clalmed is an integral part of a named fundamental right so that the exercise of such right is, in reality and substance, nothing but an instance of the exercise of a named fundamental right. For example, in Jnder Prakash v. Deputy commissioner, Delhi, the Court held that the right to higher education, as a pre-requisite to carry on a profession, partakes of the nature of a fundamental right, though not specifically named. ( 10 ) THE office of Sub-Registrar is a public office and the Sub-Registrar is a public official. In Black s Law Dictionary - Fifth edition, the words "public", "public office" and "public official" are defined as follows:"public - Pertaining to a state, nation, or whole community; proceeding from, relating to, or affecting the whole body of people or an entire community. Open to all; notorious. Common to all or many; general; open to common use. Belonging to the people at large; relating to or affecting the whole people of a state, nation, or community; not limited or restricted to any particular class of the community. Public official - The holder of a public office though not all persons in public employment are public officials, because public official s position requires the exercise of some portion of the sovereign power, whether great or small. Public official - The holder of a public office though not all persons in public employment are public officials, because public official s position requires the exercise of some portion of the sovereign power, whether great or small. Public place - A place to which the general public has a right to resort; not necessarily a place devoted solely to the uses of the public, but a place which is in point of fact public rather than private, a place visited by many persons and usually accessible to the neighbouring public (e. g. a park or public beach ). Also, a place in which the public has an interest as affecting the safety, health, morals, and welfare of the community. A place exposed to the public, and where the public gather together or pass to and fro. "as per West s Legal Thesaurus/dictionary, the word "public" means "the community at large (the public favoured the change ). Citizenry, society, population, body politic, rank and file, populace, electorate, everybody, people at large, inhabitants, silent majority, general public, nation, folk, masses, proletariat, country, city, mankind, voters, men, women, middle America. 2. adj. Common to all or many; open to common use (public accommodations ). " similarly, the word "public" according to bouvier s Law Dictionary, means, "the whole body politic, or all the citizens of the state" and the word "public place" means "any place so situated that what passes there can be seen by any considerable number of persons, if they happen to look". As pointed out in Corpus Juris Secundum, the word public is ordinarily used with reference to a joint body of citizens In Azam khan v. State of Andhra Pradesh the Court held that the word "public" means that "it is shared in or participated in or enjoyed by people at large, otherwise, it is common to all the people". As per Stroud s Judicial dictionary (Third Edition-Page 19), the words "public access to place" means a place open to all the public in fact, whether by right or permission. In R. v. Wallard it is held that "public place" means a place to which persons are in the habit of resorting, though without any legal title, but without any hindrance or interference and that a public place is one where people go, no matter whether they have a right to go or not. In R. v. Wallard it is held that "public place" means a place to which persons are in the habit of resorting, though without any legal title, but without any hindrance or interference and that a public place is one where people go, no matter whether they have a right to go or not. The test of a place being a public place is whether it is open to the members of the public or not even though there may be certain conditions attached to the entry or the use thereof. What is required is that such a place must be open for entry by an indeterminate number of members of the public. ( 11 ) IN the light of the concepts "public", "public office", "public official" and "public access to a place", it becomes quite clear, that the place in which the office of the Sub- registrar is housed should be treated as a "public place" within the meaning of that term and therefore, it is accessible to all the citizens including document writers. The state and the Inspector General can only regulate the entry of the people at large, including the document writers into the office of the Sub-Registrar, but they cannot completely prohibit the entry of the document writers in the purported exercise of the power under Section 69 (1) (bb) of the registration Act, 1908 (for short, the Act) or in terms of the conditions (a), (e), (1) and (m) specified in Rule 204 of the Rules. Section 69 (1) (bb) of the Act reads as follows: 69. Power of Inspector-General to superintend registration offices and make rules: (1) The Inspector-General shall exercise a general superintendence over all the registration offices in the territories under the State Government, and shall have powers, from time to time, make rules consistent with the Act- (a) xxx (b) xxx (bb) Providing for the grant of licences to document writers, the revocation of such licences, the terms and conditions subject to which and the authority by whom such licences shall be granted the exemption of any class of document writers from the licensing provisions and the conditions subject to which such exemption shall be granted and generally for all purposes connected with the writing of documents to be presented for registration. Rule 204 (a), (e), (1) and (m) of the Rules reads as follows:"204. Rule 204 (a), (e), (1) and (m) of the Rules reads as follows:"204. The following shall be the conditions of a licensee, namely: (a) that the licensee shall abide by these rules for the time being in force; (b) xx (c) xx (e) that he shall not abet or participate in any illegal transaction or dealings with the staff attached to the Registration Office; (f) xxx (g) xx (1) that he shall not appear as an identifying witness of any body connected with the registration of any document, and (m) that he shall not take delivery of any registered document from the registering Officer or present any application for a single or general search or for a certified copy or extract;"the power conferred upon the Inspector general under clause (bb) of sub-section (1) of Section 69, in our considered opinion, would not enable him to issue an order completely prohibiting the document writers from entering into the offices of the sub-Registrars. Sanction to impose such prohibition cannot be culled out or deduced from the provisions of clause (bb) of subsection (1 ). Similarly, clause (a) of Rule 204 of Rules would not enable the Inspector general or his subordinate officers to impose a condition that the document writers shall not at all enter the offices of the sub-Registrars or such a prohibition, if imposed, can be treated as a legally permissible condition of a licence granted to the document writers. It is true that under clause (e) of Rule 204, the document writers are mandated not to abet or participate in any illegal transactions or dealings with the staff attached to the Registration Offices. Further, clause (1) mandates that a document writer shall not appear as an identifying witness of anybody connected with the registration of any document and clause (m) further mandates that the document writer shall not take delivery of any registered document from the registering Officer or present any application for a single or general search or for a certified copy or extract. The impugned order and the counter filed by the respondents have set out the circumstances which led to the passing of the impugned order by the Inspector general. It is alleged that the document writers have been indulging in illegal transactions and dealings with the staff attached to the Registering offices. The impugned order and the counter filed by the respondents have set out the circumstances which led to the passing of the impugned order by the Inspector general. It is alleged that the document writers have been indulging in illegal transactions and dealings with the staff attached to the Registering offices. There is no need to elaborate those allegations, because paras (6) to (9) of the counter- affidavit extracted above, contain those allegations. Even assuming that some or many document writers have been indulging in such nefarious, illegal acts, even then, that circumstance itself would not justify the Inspector General to impose a total ban on all the document writers from entering into the offices of the Sub- registrars. It cannot be gainsaid that though the document writers, as provided under clauses (1) and (m) of Rule 204 of Rules, cannot appear as identifying witness of anybody connected with the registration of any document and take delivery of any registered document from the Registering officer or present any application for a single or general search or for a certified copy or extract, their duties would include frequenting the offices of the Sub Registrars for information, details of the stamp duty and for purchase of necessary stamp papers on behalf of their clients etc. , and aiding and advising their clients. If some document writers indulge in illegal activities as clalmed by the respondent authorities, it is always open for the registering authority to cancel the licences granted to such document writers, but in the garb of exercise of general superintendence under section 69 (1) (bb) of the Act, the Inspector general cannot impose a total ban on the entire body of document writers from entering into the offices of the Sub registrars. Therefore, the impugned action of the Inspector General of Registration and stamps, in so far as he has prohibited the document writers as a class from entering into the offices of the Sub Registrars for any purpose, cannot be sustained on the touchstone of art. 14 of the Constitution. In other words, the action of the Inspector General is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of art. 14 of the Constitution. In other words, the action of the Inspector General is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of art. 14 of the Constitution and the general rights of locomotion of the document writers to have access to the offices of the sub Registrars emanating from the freedom of person guaranteed under the constitution cannot be denied on the ground that some document writers have been indulging in illegal activities in practising their profession. The learned single Judge, in the order under appeal has allowed the writ petition in part and held that the impugned order passed by the inspector General of Registration and stamps is void to the extent of not allowing the document writers into the offices of the sub Registrars. However, the learned Judge has sustained the other part of the order of the Inspector General. In other words, the direction issued by the Inspector General that the document writers shall not do their profession within the compound of the Sub registrar s Office or on the verandas of the offices is sustained. Therefore, for the reasons stated by us supra, no exception can be taken to the order made by the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.