HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU ************* WRIT PETITION Nos.19061 OF 2001, 24821 OF 2001, 561 OF 2003, 581 OF 2003, 5672 OF 2003 AND 2064 OF 2003 Dated 5th November, 2009 BETWEEN WP.No. 19061 of 2001: Nalgonda Document Writers Sangam, Nalgonda, Rep. By its President Mohd. Kalimullah and ors. …..Petitioner and Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department (Stamps & Registration), Secretariat, Hyderabad, and, anr. …Respondkents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION Nos.19061 OF 2001, 24821 OF 2001, 561 OF 2003, 581 OF 2003, 5672 OF 2003 AND 2064 OF 2003 ****** COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) Writ Petition Nos. 19061 and 24821 of 2001 are filed questioning G.O.Ms.No. 108, Revenue (Registration.1) Department, dated 21.02.2000, where by in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act 1891 read with Sub Sections (1) and (2) of Section 69 of the Registration Act 1908 (Central Act 16 of 1908) (for brevity ‘the Act’), the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps with the approval of the Government made an amendment to the Rules made under Section 69 of the Registration Act 1908 by omitting Rule 200 made in the A.P. Registration Rules [for brevity, ‘the Rules’]. Writ Petition Nos. 561 and 2064 of 2003 are filed questioning G.O.Ms.No. 1131 Revenue (Registration. I) Department, dated 24.12.2002 whereby under Rule 208(2) of the Rules for licensing of Document Writers issued vide G.O.Ms.No. 1082 Revenue (Registration) Department, dated 10-12-2002, the Government of Andhra Pradesh ordered the non-renewal of Document Writer Licences with effect from 1st January, 2003 in respect of the areas falling under the Sub Districts having computerized Sub Registrar’s offices mentioned therein. Writ Petition No. 581 of 2003 is filed for declaring Section 69 of the Act as ultra vires and unconstitutional as it suffers from vice of excessive delegation and to set aside G.O.Ms.No.1082 Revenue (Registration. I) Department, 10-12-2002 and consequential G.O.Ms.No. 1131, Revenue (Registration.I) Department, dated 24.12.2002. Writ Petition No. 5672 of 2003 is filed to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to amend Rule 208 of the Rules vide G.O.Ms.No. 134, Revenue (Registration.I) Dated1.2.2003 and consequential G.O.Ms.No. 149 Revenue (Registration.1) dated 4.2.2003 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Act. The factual matrix behind filing of these cases in nutshell are as under: The Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 108, dated 21.2.2000 omitting/withdrawing Rule 200 of the Rules which was to the effect that no non-testamentary document which is not written and attested to by a Document Writer licenced under these rules for the area concerned shall be accepted for registration except on payment of a fee of Rs.100/- in addition to the fee chargeable for its registration. There upon the respondents issued G.O.Ms.No.1082, dated 10.12.2002 making amendment and adding proviso to Rule 208 of the Rules wherein and whereby the Government ordered non-renewal of document writer licenses either permanently or for specified periods, in respect of any class, category of persons or areas of operation in the State of Andhra Pradesh either before or on the dates these renewals fall due from the date of issue of such notification restricting the renewal of the licenses notwithstanding procedure for renewal contained in Registration Rules 202 and 208 and in respect thereof consequential G.O.Ms.No. 1131, dated 24.12.2002 was issued publishing the said amendment in the A.P. Gazette ordering non-renewal of document Writer Licences with effect from 1.1.2003. However, while drafting the rule and publishing the same in the gazette inappropriate wording was occurred suggesting that the Government itself had framed the rule, and, after rectifying the same, further orders in G.O.ms.No. 134, dated 1.2.2003 and consequential G.O.Ms.No. 149, dated 4.2.2003 were issued. Inasmuch as the issue involved in all the Writ Petition is one and the same, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that computer savvy of the Government is marketed as a technological advance and has a step in keeping with progress. But, at all points of time, the Government has however declared its policy as one not intending to use the computer as a replacement to human level. It was introduced, used and perpetuated in so much as an alternative but as an augmenting facility. The endeavour to exclude human conduct would however be contrary to a constitutional claim. It is submitted that Section 69 empowers the Inspector General of Stamps and Registration to exercise general superintendence over all the registration offices in the territories under the State Government and shall have power from time to time to make rules, and from the scheme of Section 69, it is clear that for a rule to have statutory effect, it must emanate from the Inspector General, it must be in furtherance of the provisions of the Act and not inconsistent with the Act and the said rules be subject to approval by the Government and thereafter its subsequent publication. In the present case the action of the Government in making the rules by itself without reference to the Inspector General is contrary to the legislative mandate contained in Section 69 (1) and (2) of the Act. Therefore, the power given to the Inspector General suffers the vices of excessive delegation. It is their further submission that while exercising the power the statutory authority viz., the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps himself cannot withdraw the right contained in Section 32 of the Act. It is submitted that omission of Rule 200 of the Rules gives adverse affect to all the document writers in losing their livelihood and become un-employees and thereby makes the public into further difficulties in drafting their documents. As per the added proviso to Rule 208 the Government ordered not to renew the license of document writers, the same is nothing but amounts to imposition of total ban to carry on their profession. It is submitted that the Government at one time sponsored a scheme for training document writers through employment exchange and imparted to them training and now they are being thrown on road. The system of licensing document writer is for the benefit of the public and safeguard their interest and their documents are being prepared and attested by the qualified document writers and in absence of which there will be any amount of scope for the innocent and illiterate public being misled and ineffective conveyances and not in conformity with their intentions or legal requirements. They lastly submit that the imposition of total ban on renewal of document writers licenses is not only contrary to the special employment scheme in G.O.Ms.No. 541, dated 11-12- 1984, but also arbitrary exercise of power and without any basis. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Ayyagari Samsamkaram Vs. Inspector General of Registration & Stamps, AP[1], Regional Transport Officer Vs. Associated Transport Madras Private Ltd[2], Hukum Chand Prithvi Chand deceased Vs. Union of India[3], Sitaram Sugar Company Ltd Vs. Union of India[4], and, NGEF Ltd., Chander Developers (P) Ltd.,[5] etc,. Per contra, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents submits that the amendment made to Registration Rule 208 through G.O.Ms.No. 1082, dated 12.12.2002 and notifying through G.O.Ms.No. 1131, dt. 24.12.2002 etc are well within the competence and jurisdiction of the State Government. He further submits that as the objectives behind the amendments are lofty, rational and hassle free environment to registering public, no legitimate complaint can be voiced and the same are in tune with the good governance with emphasis on citizen friendly approach. Section 69(1) of the Act empowers the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps to exercise general superintendence over all the Registration Offices and to make from time to time rules and regulations consistent with the Act. Section 69(bb) of the Act provides for the grant of licenses to Document Writers, revocation of such licenses, the terms and conditions under which the licenses can be granted etc.,. Chapter XXXI of the Rules deals with the rules for licensing of document writers under the rules 99 to 200, according to which Document Writer shall get the license only after acquiring the necessary qualification stipulated in the Rules and also paying the licensing fee from year to year and on such the license also renewed by the concerned authorities on year wise. After omitting Rule 200 of the Rules, the Government constituted a Revenue Reforms Committee vide G.O.Ms.No. 125, Revenue (CT.II) Department, dated 31.1.2002. The Member Secretary of the said committee by letter dated 5.9.2002 sought for certain feed back from various persons. On the basis of the analysis of the scenario and consequent upon the issuance of G.O. Ms.No. 108, dated 21.2.2000 deleting Rule 200 of the Rules, the abolition of compulsory documentation by the document writer under the Rule 208 was issued in the subsequent Government Orders as stated supra. Earlier, when the Revenue Department had submitted its proposals in its Letter No.G1/29595/97, dt. 22.5.1998 to withdraw rule 200 allowing non licensed document writer to draft documents without paying the additional fee of Rs.100/-, the Government felt that this amendment is in tune with the computerization process of the Sub-Registrar offices and would provide even full and equal opportunity for all conversant with the drafting of documents to the registering public without paying the additional fee of Rs.100/-. In fact the Document Writing Software has been developed and put on the Website of the Department through which it can be accessed by any one. Therefore the need for a person to approach a licensed Document Writer only for drafting a document has become redundant. It is stated that the document writing software was introduced on 25.8.200-. The initiation of deleting Rule 200 of the Rules was aimed at providing opportunity to any person to draft documents without paying additional fee as per their whims and wishes. With the idea of providing sufficient number of people qualified to draft documents a set of rules were framed in 1960 providing inter alia for the qualifications of document writers. A system of licensing was also introduced. Drafting of documents by knowledgeable persons would in turn facilitate the work of the employees of the Registration Department who had to scrutinize these documents to judge whether they were in proper form. After the system of licensing was introduced a rule was also incorporated where under for documents which were not drafted by licensed document writers an extra charge of Rs. 100/- was being collected for registration. The licensees did not have any special privileges or rights. There was no restriction against any person drafting the document or presenting it for registration. The Government was also conducting some tests for document writers. This procedure was discontinued from 1985. In 1990 some people were given training in writing of documents and licensed as document writers. Later it has been realized that there was really no necessity for this license system and that this system should be abolished in stages. Having realized that there was no distinction being made for the purpose of registration between documents drafted by licensed document writers and others, thereby, as stated supra, a Revenue Committee was constuted to submit its proposals in this regard and basing on its report and views, the subject matter of initiation took place. Government, therefore, in implementation of its policy of eliminating licensing of document writers has amended the rule. The document writing software introduced is essentially a citizen friendly proposition for the benefit of all the public and is a socially relevant measure to eliminate the role of mediators, touts etc.,. Apprehending the computer as the proverbial Arabians camel, the petitioner association as early as on 26.10.1998 voiced the apprehensions about being replaced by the functions attributed to the computer. The Government in response to the said representation issued a letter dated 21.1.1999 replying the petitioner association that the intent was only for better and quick services to eradicate certain gray areas of localities and that there was no intent to do away with the document writers and stamp vendors. It is further stated that in view of the computerization, the role of middlemen, dalaris and touts will be eliminated for registering documents, obtaining ECs and CCs and to check the corruption and that the general public will have full liberty for preparation of their documents as per their wishes. The order of the Government is citizen friendly in view of the fact that the removal of this provision enables the registering parties who can prepare their own documents without paying any extra fee to the Government. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that while drafting the subject Rule and publishing the same in the gazette, inappropriate wording was used suggesting that the Government itself had framed the rules; challenging the same, WP.No.581 of 2003 is filed raising ground that the statutory power conferred on the Inspector General of Stamps and Registration by Section 69 of the Act suffers from vices of excessive delegation. Realizing the same that it is an error apparent on the face of the draft notification, though actually the rule had been framed by the Inspector General of Registration and duly approved by the Government, it was decided to cancel G.O.Ms.No. 1082 dated 13- 12-2002 and G.O.Ms. No. 1131, dated 24-12-2002 and fresh notifications appropriately worded were issued vide G.O.Ms.No.134, dated 1.2.2003 and consequential order in G.O.Ms.No. 149, dated 4-2-2009. In view of the same, the argument voiced that the power conferred on the Inspector General of Stamps and Registration by Section 69 of the Act suffers from the vices of excessive delegation does not stand in the eye of law. In his counter affidavit, the Inspector General of Stamps and Registration stated that even if impugned Government Orders are in force, there is no embargo whatsoever manner on drafting of documents by any one including licensed Document Writers and they are not barred from drafting the documents even after the amendment to Rule and there is no discriminatory approach contemplated on drafting of documents by virtue of the amendment. In the view thereof, no infringement of fundamental rights is involved in the matter of non-renewal of licenses as computerization contemplates providing software and supply of pro-forma deeds for document writing as part of package, thereby the question of violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution does not arise. In our opinion, the deletion of Rule 200 of the Rules was aimed at providing opportunity to any person to draft his document according to his whims and wishes, without paying additional fee. This being a regulatory measure may be for better efficiency, full liberty in the general public at large interest, but ordinarily it cannot prohibit a person totally debarring him from carrying on his profession at any stage chosen by the Government unless there may be special reasons for it. It is true, even total prohibition upon carrying on one’s profession can be imposed by way of regulatory measure, but for doing so condition of public interest must be fulfilled. It is not to be taken lightly; it must pass through a stringent test. In the present case as stated supra, even in issuance of impugned Government Orders, there is no complete ban on the document writers to carry on their profession and they are at liberty, as stated by the Inspector General of Stamps and Registration in his counter to the present Writ Petitions. Trite to state, the concept of legitimate expectation has no role to play where the State action is as a public policy or in the public interest unless the action taken amounts to an abuse of power. The Court must not usurp the discretion of the public authority which is empowered to take the policy decision under law and the Court is expected to apply an objective standard which leave to the deciding authority the full range of choice which the legislature is presumed to have intended. In the light of the foregoing discussion, We see no merits in the Writ Petitions The Writ Petitions are dismissed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------- JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY ---------------------------------------------- JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dated 05th November, 2009. Msnr. [1] AIR 1969 AP 134 [2] 1980 SC 1872 [3] 1972 SC 2427 [4] 1990 SC 1277 [5] 2005 (8) SCC 219