Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2081 (RAJ)

Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan

2010-12-15

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2010
Hon'ble MAHESHWARI, J.—Though listed for admission, at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel, the matter has been heard finally at this stage itself. 2. The licence issued to the petitioner on 12.5.1993 for writing documents (Annex. 1) was cancelled by the Collector, Sriganganagar by his order dated 5.7.2006 (Annex. 4). Aggrieved, the petitioner made a representation to the Inspector General (Registration & Stamps), Rajasthan per Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908. The representation so made by the petitioner came to be rejected by the Inspector General after taking a report from the Collector (Annex. 5); and the so-called order of the Inspector General has been communicated by the Assistant Legal Remembrancer in the impugned communication dated 1.10.2008 (Annex. 6) stating as under:- ^^mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr funsZ'kkuqlkj ys[k gS fd ftyk dysDVj] Jhxaxkuxj ds i=kad ,Q 40¼29½ tu@04@7083 fnukad 21-9-2007 o 5611 fnukad 27-8-2008 ds }kjk izkIr rF;kRed fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij vkids izkFkZuk i= fnukad 10-7-2007 esa ftyk iath;d] Jhxaxkuxj ds vkns'k fnukad 6-7-2006 esa gLr{ksi dk dksbZ leqfpr dkj.k@vk/kkj ugha gSA vr% lwpukFkZ izsf"kr gSA** 3. It is submitted that the Collector has passed the order without adherence to the requirements of natural justice and without holding any enquiry and the Inspector General has also proceeded to reject the representation with an entirely non speaking order. The learned counsel for the respondents though has attempted to support the action impugned but could not deny the position that no speaking order of Inspector General (Registration & Stamps) is available on record. 4. The manner of decision of the matter by the Inspector General, cannot be approved. The application as made by the petitioner was required to be dealt with in accordance with law and to be decided with a speaking order containing the reasons, even if in brief. Neither any specific order passed by the Inspector General is available on record nor the communication dated 1.10.2008 contains specific reason for rejection of the application of the petitioner. In the given set of facts and circumstances, it appears just and proper that while setting aside the communication dated 1.10.2008, the matter be restored for re-consideration of Inspector General (Registration & Stamps), Rajasthan. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above; the impugned communication dated 1.10.2008 (Annex. In the given set of facts and circumstances, it appears just and proper that while setting aside the communication dated 1.10.2008, the matter be restored for re-consideration of Inspector General (Registration & Stamps), Rajasthan. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above; the impugned communication dated 1.10.2008 (Annex. 6) is set aside and the application made by the petitioner is restored for re-consideration in accordance with law by the Inspector General (Registration & Stamps) Rajasthan, Ajmer who shall be expected to afford an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and then to decide the application with a reasoned order expeditiously and without unnecessary delay. For the purpose of such proceedings, the petitioner, in the first place, may appear before the inspector General on 17.1.2011. There shall be no order as to costs of this writ petition.