Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 381 (PAT)

Rama Shankar Tiwary v. State Of Bihar

2004-04-06

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2004
Judgment 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order as communicated to the petitioners by the District Sub Registrar by its memo No. 310 dated 30th of July, 2003 whereby the licences of document writers granted to the petitioners have been cancelled. 2. Short facts giving rise to present application are that the petitioners were granted licences provided under section 68-A of the Registration Act, 1908 as amended by Bihar Act 6 of 1991, hereinafter referred to as the Act. It seems that an inquiry was held by the Secretary-cum-Inspector General of Registration in regard to the evasion of stamp duty. He forwarded his report to the District Registrar-cum-Collector by its memo no. 1278 dated 20.6.2003, who in turn, by order dated 27.7.2003, directed for cancellation of the licences of the document writers granted to the petitioners. In the light of the aforesaid direction, the District Sub Registrar, by order dated 30th July, 2003 (Annexure-1), cancelled the document writers licences of the petitioners. The petitioners have averred that before passing the impugned order, no opportunity was given to the petitioners. Said assertion of the petitioners has not been denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed on their behalf. 3. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Verma, appearing on behalf of the petitioners raises a very short point. He submits that before cancelling the licences of the document writers, petitioners ought to have been given sufficient opportunity to show cause against the cancellation of the licences. He submits that no such opportunity having been given, the order impugned is vitiated on that count alone. 4. Mr. Sinha, JC to G.P. II, however, submits that as a result of inquiry conducted by the Inspector General of Registration, petitioners were found to be involved in undervaluing the document leading to evasion of stamp duty and accordingly, the licences granted to them have been cancelled and no fault can be found out in the same. 5. Having considered the rival submission, I find substance in the contention of Mr. Verma. 5. Having considered the rival submission, I find substance in the contention of Mr. Verma. Section 68-B (4) of the Act, which is relevant for the purpose, reads as follows : 68-B.Grant of licence to document writers XXX XXX (4) -(a) The licence granted under sub-sections (1) and (2) may at any time, be suspended or cancelled on the breach of conditions prescribed or for such other reasons to be recorded in writing by the Registrar of District or the officer authorised by him, after the document -writer has been given sufficient opportunity to show cause against the proposed suspension or cancellation of the licence and after the same has been duly considered. (b) An appeal shall lie before the Inspector General of Registration against any order passed under this section. Explanation.For the purposes of Sections 68A and 68B- (i) "Document-writer" means and includes one who is engaged in the profession of preparing documents, namely, doing the work of conveyancing, including investigation of titles, preparation of draft deeds and engrossing and transcribing the deed, including copies, if any, for registration, or making searches and inspection under the Act, and (ii) "Apprentice" means one who assists a document-writer in the preparation of documents and transcribes them (including copies, if any) to be presented for registration." 6. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that before cancellation of the licences of the document writers, petitioners ought to have been given sufficient opportunity to show cause against the cancellation and only after the consideration of the show cause, the decision should have been taken. Here in the present case, no such opportunity was given and this vitiates the impugned order. 7. To put the record straight, it is relevant here to state that an appeal lies before the Inspector General of Registration against the order cancelling the Ii- cences but in view of the fact that the order impugned has been passed on the basis of his report, I deem it inexpedient to relegate the petitioners to the remedy of appeal. 8. In the result, application is allowed, impugned order is set aside. 9. Respondents, if so desire, may proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law bearing in mind the aforesaid observation made above. No cost.