Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 673 (MP)

Mukesh Sharma v. State of M. P.

2013-06-18

S.K.Gangele

body2013
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 18.1.2013 (Annexure P-1). 2. By the aforesaid order, the licence of the petitioner granted earlier to the petitioner of document writer, has been cancelled. It is mentioned in the order that certain complaints were made in regard to issuance of licence in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing it was found that the petitioner had no knowledge of typing, hence, he is not eligible to hold license of document writer. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that impugned order passed by the authority is against the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Document Writers Licensing Rules, 1966, hence, the order is liable to be quashed. 4. In exercise of powers conferred by clause (k) of sub-section (1) of section 69 read with section 82-A of the Registration Act, 1980 (XVI of 1908), the Inspector General of Registration framed rules, named as “The Madhya Pradesh Document Writers Licensing Rules, 1966” [hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1966”]. The aforesaid Rules prescribe procedure for grant of licence; cancellation/withdrawal of licence and also renewal of licence. 5. Rule 5 of the Rule of 1966 prescribes grant of licence. The relevant Rule 5(d) is as under:- “(d) that the number of document writers in position at the registration office concerned is less than that fixed under Rule 3 within a period to be specified in the licence, grant the applicant a licence in Form II. Preference may be given to those persons who know typewriting and possess or undertake to possess a typewriter for this purpose.” 6. In accordance with the aforesaid Rule, the document writer is in a position to write document and preference should be given to those persons, who know typewriting. 7. Rule 18 of the Rules of 1966 prescribes suspension or cancellation of licence. In accordance with the aforesaid Rule, the licensing authority shall cancel the licence on the ground mentioned in the Rule. The relevant provision is as under:- “18. 7. Rule 18 of the Rules of 1966 prescribes suspension or cancellation of licence. In accordance with the aforesaid Rule, the licensing authority shall cancel the licence on the ground mentioned in the Rule. The relevant provision is as under:- “18. of suspension or cancellation of licence- (1) The Licensing Authority may at any time suspend or cancel the licence of a document writer on any of the following grounds, namely- (a) breach of any of these rules or of the conditions of the licence; (b) failure to attend the Registration Offices continuously for a period exceeding one month without the prior permission of the Licensing Authority; (c) for bring guilty of participation in any illegal transaction of unfair dealings by public servant in the Registration Department; (d) if the document writer indulges in practices which tend to encourage corruption in the office of the Registering Officer; (e) if the document writer charges remuneration for writing deeds in excess of what is laid down in the scale of fees prescribed in Rule 11; (f) any other act of misconduct on the part of document writer. (2) No order under sub-section(1) shall be passed unless the document writer has been given an opportunity to be heard in his defence.” 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the licence has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner did not have knowledge of typing. However, it is not essential qualification for grant of licence. Neither knowledge of typing is an eligibility criteria for grant of licence. It is mentioned in the Rules that the preference shall be given to those persons who know the typewriting. Hence the impugned order is contrary to the Rules of 1966. Apart from this, there is a provision of renewal of licence because the licence of the petitioner was for a period of one year and that has also been lapsed. 9. Hence, the petition of the petitioner is disposed of with the following directions:- (I) That, the impugned order dated 18.1.2013 (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed. (II) That, the authority is at liberty to consider all the aspects in accordance with Rules of 1966 in the event of renewal of licence. 10. No order as to costs.