IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos. 21289 and 21290 of 2001 W.P. No. 21289 of 2001 Between: P. Naga Raju S/o.P.Ram Mohan Document Writer L.No.5/1989, R/o.Kodumur, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Registrar of Stamps & Registration, Kurnool. 2 The Commissioner and Inspector General of Stamps and Registration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order calling for the records in and relating to the proceedings No.E2/DWS/1783/99 dated 7.9.2001 of the first respondent and quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SOMA KONDA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition Nos.21289 and 21290 of 2001 Common Order: Cancellation of licences of two document writers is impugned in these two writ petitions. It would suffice, for the purpose of disposal of both the writ petitions, if the facts in W.P. No. 21290 of 2001 are taken note of. The petitioner was granted a document writer’s licence by the first respondent on 02.02.1974 and was attached to the office of the Sub- Registrar, Kodumur. While so, on 14.02.1997, the officials of the Anti Corruption Department conducted a raid on the office of the Sub- Registrar, Kodumur pursuant to which show cause notice dated 13.10.1999 was served on the petitioner by the first respondent alleging that he had collected excess amounts from the parties and, on receipt of the explanation thereto, the first respondent, vide proceedings dated 15.11.1999, passed an order holding that the petitioner ought not to have collected cash towards stamp duty and that his action was in contravention of the rules. The petitioner was held guilty under Rule 214(iv) of the Registration Rules. Accordingly, a penalty was imposed on the petitioner suspending his licence for a period of two months i.e., from 15.11.1999 to 15.01.2000. Another show cause notice dated 02.08.2001 was issued by the first respondent calling upon the petitioner to show cause within seven days as to why action should not be taken for cancellation of his licence as a document writer attached to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kodumur, for having collected excess amount from two persons on 14.02.1997, when the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kodumur was raided by Anti Corruption Bureau officials. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 08.08.2001 contending that he was already found guilty for the same offence and was punished by order dated 15.11.1999 whereby his licence was suspended for a period of two months and that he could not be punished twice for the same offence. Thereafter, proceedings dated 07.09.2001 were issued holding that the petitioner ought not to have collected cash towards stamp duty, that his action was in contravention of the rules, that he was guilty under Rule 214 of the Registration Rules and that his licence was cancelled. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition. The petitioner would contend that he cannot be punished twice for the same offence, that the impugned order was passed mechanically without application of mind to his explanation and that the grounds for cancellation of the licence as stipulated in Rule 214(b), are not even alleged let alone not made out. The petitioner would point out that, while an appeal lies to the next higher authority i.e., the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps under Rule 216 of the Registration Rules, in the case on hand, the first respondent cancelled the petitioner’s licence based on orders issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, and the Government in its memo dated 02.02.2001, that both of them were superior authorities to the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps who was the appellate authority and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in filing an appeal. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the Anti Corruption Department had raided the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kodumur, that they had checked the registers maintained by the petitioner and found excess cash on his person, that this was reported to the Government, that basing on the report of the Anti Corruption Department, the Assistant District Registrar, Kurnool, was appointed as a regular Enquiry Officer, that an enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted, which disclosed that the petitioner had contravened the licensing conditions under the provisions of Rule 214 (iv) of the Registration Rules and, after complying with the principles of natural justice i.e., by issuing show cause notice and receiving his explanation, the licence of the petitioner was suspended, vide proceedings dated 15.11.1999. It is stated that the Government had issued memo dated 02.02.2001 directing the respondents to cancel the document writer’s licence of the petitioner and, pursuant thereto, a fresh show cause notice dated 02.08.2001 was issued. It is further stated that the petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice on 08.08.2001 and, since the explanation was found not satisfactory, his licence was cancelled. Respondents would urge that an appeal lay to the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps under Rule 216 of the Registration Rules, that the petitioner’s contention of being punished twice was not sustainable, that his fundamental rights were not violated and that none of the contentions raised were valid. This Court, by order in W.P.M.P. No. 26834 of 2001 in W.P. No. 21290 of 2001 dated 11.10.2001, suspended the impugned order. Similar interim order was passed in the other writ petition also and, as a result, both the petitioners continued to function as document writers, their licences having been periodically renewed. Sri K. Somakonda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners continue to function as document writers even as on date. Rule 214(a)(iv) of the Registration Rules provides that a licence granted under the rules may be suspended if the licensee is found guilty of any abetment of or participation in any illegal transaction or dealings with the staff attached to the Registration Offices. Unlike certain rules which provide for suspension pending enquiry, in addition to its being imposed as a punishment, in the case on hand Rule 214(a) provides for suspension of the licence only as a measure of penalty. Rule 214(b) provides that a licence granted under the rules may be cancelled if the licensee has been suspended three times and he becomes disqualified on any of the grounds specified in rule 201 and covered by rule 209. Rule 201 provides for certain contingencies where licence cannot be granted and Rule 209 requires an application to be made for grant of fresh licence where the licence is not renewed within a period of six calendar months after expiry of the calendar year for which the licence was granted. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the petitioners have been suspended only once and not on three occasions. Under Rule 215 of the Registration Rules the licensing authority or any higher authority may suspend any licence granted under the rules for any period or may cancel such licence. It is evident, therefore, that while a licence could be suspended for the contingencies mentioned in Clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 214(a), a licence can be suspended under Rule 215 by an authority mentioned therein. In the case on hand, the authorities had suspended the petitioners’ licences for a period of two months. Having imposed the punishment of suspension, the rules do not confer any jurisdiction on the authorities concerned to cancel the licence for the very same ground or event. While the impugned order records that the petitioners were found guilty under Rule 214 of the Registration Rules, it is not even clear which of the contingencies mentioned in Clauses (i) to (iv) are attracted. Not only does the authority lack jurisdiction to impose a punishment twice for the same offence, he also does not have the power to cancel the licences except for those contingencies mentioned in Clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 214(b) of the Registration Rules. Since the authorities have not applied their mind, to the contingencies under Clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 214(b), the impugned order also suffers from non-application of mind. While Rule 216 does provide for an appeal against the order of the first respondent, it is evident from the impugned order itself that the said order was issued at the behest of the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps and the Government. The appellate authority i.e., the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps is an authority lower in rank than that of the Commissioner and Inspector General of Stamps and Registration. I find considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that availing of the remedy of an appeal would merely be an empty formality, since the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps cannot be expected to take a different view than that of the Inspector General of Stamps and Registration or that of the Government. Even otherwise, it is well settled, (Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks ((1998) 8 SCC 1), that existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In certain contingencies, which includes lack of jurisdiction, violation of principles of natural justice etc., this Court would be justified in exercising discretion to entertain a writ petition despite existence of an alternative statutory remedy. Further, these writ petitions were admitted as early as in the year 2001 and, after a lapse of eight years, the writ petitions are being taken up for hearing. I find no justification whatsoever in now relegating the petitioners to the alternative remedy of an appeal. Viewed from any angle mere existence of an alternative remedy under Rule 216 of the Registration Rules would not preclude jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being exercised to entertain the writ petitions and to decide the matter on merits. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders are quashed. The writ petitions are allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date: 26.02.2009 Nsr