Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 2449 (ALL)

Kailash Narayan Singh v. Zila Nibandhak, Varanasi

2004-12-06

RAKESH TIWARI

body2004
ORDER Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel and perused the record. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 6.12.1999 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by Zila Nibandhak, Varanasi (respondent No. 1) cancelling the petitioner’s licence of Deed Writer. 3. The facts of the case in a short compass are that the petitioner was granted the licence of Deed Writer in the year 1976 which was renewed from time to time. An Application No. 74/99 was filed by one Smt. Shailesh Devi in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi praying that certain persons including the petitioner were hands in gloves in preparing and registering a forged sale deed of certain land belonging to her. An F.I.R. was also lodged against the petitioner in this regard on 3.11.1999 in pursuance whereof he was arrested. 4. The petitioner moved an application before the 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 26.11.1999 for his release on bail. The Sessions Judge, Varanasi, granted him bail on 6.12.1999. However, relying upon the report of the Superintendent of Police (Rural Area), Varanasi dated 2.12.1999, respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order dated 6.12.1999 cancelling the licence of the petitioner on the ground that he was in collusion with certain persons against whom a criminal case was lodged under Sections 419, 430, 467, 468 and 478, I.P.C. 5. The only contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he had not been afforded any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order cancelling his licence of Deed Writer and as such the order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. The standing counsel submits that it is the consistent view of the Apex Court as well as of this Court that the principles of natural justice are not straitjacket formula and they do not apply automatically in every case. He submits that it is apparent from the impugned order itself that the petitioner had not only prepared the forged sale deed in his own hand-writing but he had also made forged and fictitious signatures/thumb impressions and attached forged photographs of imposters as tenure-holders. In this way he had got the forged sale deed registered on 30.8.1999. Not only this but he had also attested the photographs of the imposters for this purpose. In this way he had got the forged sale deed registered on 30.8.1999. Not only this but he had also attested the photographs of the imposters for this purpose. The police had investigated the matter and found that the petitioner was involved in the aforesaid crime. 7. In this view of the matter, this is not a case where the principles of natural justice are automatically attracted. A person who is guilty of manufacturing fabricated or forged documents cannot claim application of principles of natural justice as a matter of right. The petitioner was a Deed Writer in the premises of the office of Sub-Registrar, Gangapur district Varanasi. If action against such type of person is not taken and he is left unpunished the confidence of the public in the judiciary would shake and not only the revenue of the Government would be affected but the image of the judiciary will also be tarnished. 8. For the reasons stated above, this is not a case for interference with the impugned order in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.