JUDGMENT:- 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order, dated 30.11.2011, issued by the first respondent, cancelling the Documents writers Licence of the petitioner, for a period of 3 months, from the date of receipt of the said order. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Document Writers Licence Rules, 1982, empowers the District Registrar to suspend or cancel the licence of the document writers, if the said licence had been issued, authorising the persons to practice as a document writers in the offices of the District Registrar or the Sub-Registrar. However, a licence issued to the petitioner, to practice as a document writer, in all offices of the State of Tamil Nadu could be suspended or cancelled only by the Inspector General of Registration. 4. From the records available before this Court, it is seen that the Document Writers Licence, issued in favour of the petitioner, had been renewed, upto 31.12.2013. However, the said licence had been cancelled for a period of three months, by an order passed by the first respondent, who does not have the power or authority to do so, as per Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Document Writers Rules, 1982. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has not been in a position to show that the first respondent has the jurisdiction or authority to cancel the licence of the petitioner, invoking Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Document Writers Rules, 1982, as the said licence had been issued to the petitioner, to practice as a document writer, in all the offices in the State of Tamil Nadu. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned order passed by the first respondent, dated 30.11.2011. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. However, it goes without saying that it would be open to the authorities concerned to initiate appropriate action against the petitioner, if it is found fit to do so, in accordance with the procedures established by law. Further, it is made clear that this Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 are closed.