IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 11008 of 2007 Date of Decision: April 1, 2008 Suresh Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Jasbir Rattan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 21.5.2007, passed by the Financial Commissioner Revenue (P-1), upholding the view taken by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, in his order dated 24.10.2006 (P-2) and that of Registrar-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur, in his order dated 14.3.2005 (P-3). The petitioner has been held guilty of violating Rule 14(g) of the Punjab Document-Writers Licensing Rules, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Rules’) and his licence of deed writer has been cancelled. The petitioner is a document writer, who has scribed C.W.P. No. 11008 of 2007 Vasika No. 4020, dated 20.1.2005, on behalf of one Smt. Sunita Rani w/o Shri Pradeep Kumar, resident of Dhuri, in favour of Shri Haripal son of Shri Bant Ram and Smt. Neera Gupta wife of Shri Haripal, resident of Dhuri, for a consideration of Rs. 1,75,000/-, in respect of shop measuring 200 Sq. feet. The price of the land claimed by the respondents is Rs. 5,00,000/-. The petitioner is alleged to have scribed the document by showing that only ground floor of the shop has been built whereas according to the report of the Patwari, the first floor was also there. The allegation against the petitioner is that he connived with the vendor and vendees with an intention to cause loss to the public exchequer by concealing the second floor building. The aforementioned irregularities were brought to the notice of the Registrar-cum-Deputy Commissioner by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhuri, vide his letter dated 9.2.2005. As a consequence, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 18.2.2005, who contested the allegation by submitting reply dated 28.2.2005. He took the defence that he has scribed the deed according to what has been shown to him and he did not commit any fault. The Registrar-cum- Deputy Commissioner found that the petitioner has committed violation of the conditions of his licence as envisaged by Rule 14(g) of the Rules. The operative part of the order dated 14.3.2005 (P-3), passed by the Registrar-cum-Deputy Commissioner reads, thus:- “ After this office has issued show cause notice no. 567 dated 18.2.2005, reply of which he submitted on 28.2.2005. In which he has written that the present 2 C.W.P. No. 11008 of 2007 situation of shop, he inquired from neighbouring shopkeepers. He has written vasika according to what has been shown to him. It is not his fault. Today dated 14.3.2005 Suresh Kumar Document Writer has been heard personally and he could not explain about his above mentioned mistake properly. So he has breached the Section 14(G) of Document Writers Rules 1961 and misused his power. So the license is cancelled.” Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, by filing an appeal under Rule 16 of the Rules. The Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, in her order has conceded that technically it was not the job of the document writer to record the correct facts, yet, she invoked the rules to read duties of the document writer holding that he should have been careful in recording clear facts. She has further held that whenever a document writer is not satisfied with the description of the property, he must always point out to his client rather than aiding the concealment in connivance with them, as it would result in avoidance of payment of stamp duty and registration fee, which is chargeable by the public exchequer. Accordingly, she dismissed the appeal, vide order dated 24.10.2006 (P-2). The petitioner again tried his luck by filing a second appeal under Rule 16 (2) of the Rules, before the Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab. She also dismissed the appeal upholding the order passed by the 3 C.W.P. No. 11008 of 2007 Registrar-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur and Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, by holding that it was imperative for the petitioner to ensure that the document was properly valued. It has further been held that he has under-valued the document in connivance with the parties, which prove his mala fide intention. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. In order to appreciate the controversy raised, it would be apposite to read Rule 14(f) & (g) of the Rules, which reads, thus:- “14. Conditions of licence. – A document-writer – xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (f) shall not write or cause to be written by any other document-writer any document which he knows to be unnecessary or fraudulent in nature: (g) shall be responsible to see that the document is written on a stamp paper of proper value and that the document is classified according to its substance;” According to the conditions prescribed by Rule 14 a document writer is under various obligations, which include maintenance of a register and also further obligation of signing every document written by him by affixing his seal. According to Rule 14 (f), a document writer must not write or cause to be written by any other document writer any document which he knows to be fraudulent 4 C.W.P. No. 11008 of 2007 in nature and unnecessary. According to Rule 14(g), he is responsible to ensure that the document is written on a stamp paper of proper value and the document is classified according to its substance. A document writer by virtue of Rule 14(g) of the Rules is expected to calculate the stamp duty and registration fee on the apparent sale price of the property shown by the parties. The rule further imposes a responsibility on a document writer to classify the document according to its substance, which would mean that he would give the document a name such as mortgage deed, partition deed, sale deed, will etc. etc. It is not possible to interpret the rule to mean that the document writer is expected to insist on the parties to disclose market value of the property either as per collector’s rate or the prevailing market rates. The respondents in all the three impugned orders have interpreted the rule to mean that a document writer is expected to write the document on a stamp paper of proper value, which is the prevailing market value. Such an interpretation would result into conferring power on a document writer which are to be exercised by the Collector under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The only reasonable interpretation of Rule 14(g) of the Rules is that a document writer is expected to write the document on a stamp paper of proper value. In other words, if a particular price has been disclosed then the document writer would expect the parties to use the stamp paper, which is required according to the disclosed value. If a document writer is to write a Power of Attorney then the stamp paper of proper value has to be used, so on and so forth. Therefore, the 5 C.W.P. No. 11008 of 2007 interpretation of Rule 14(g) of the Rules adopted by the respondents is erroneous and unwarranted. It suffers from grave mistake of law. The argument of the learned State counsel that the petitioner has earlier also committed similar type of lapses does not make any difference because the act of the petitioner cannot be considered to suffer from any legal lapses as per interpretation of Rule 14(g) of the Rules given by us in preceding para. Therefore, the argument lacks substance and the same is rejected. As a sequel to the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 14.3.2005 (P-3), 24.10.2006 (P-2) and 21.5.2007 (P-1), passed by the Registrar-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and the Financial Commissioner Revenue respectively are hereby quashed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) April 1, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 6