// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5231/2004 Ram Dayal Sharma S/o Shri Kalyan Prasad Sharma Versus Collector and District Registrar, Karauli Date of Order ::: 09.05.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri R.P. Garg, Counsel for petitioner Smt. Sudesh Kasana, Dy. Govt. Counsel for respondent #### //Reportable// By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 24th July, 2004 (Annexure-1) passed by the Collector and District Registrar, Karauli, whereby the licence No.6/88, granted to the petitioner for document-writer, has been cancelled. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was holding a licence of document-writer since 1988 and there was no complaint against him for last about more than 16 years. However, his son Anil Kumar Sharma lodged one F.I.R. No.204/2004 dated 7th April, 2004, at Police Station Hindauncity, against one Bhagwan S/o Shiv Charan, who was working at the residence of Sub Registrar, Hindauncity. The said person Bhagwan pressurized the Sub Registrar to take action against the petitioner and, at his instance, a false enquiry-report was prepared by the Sub Registrar against the petitioner and his licence was cancelled. He contended that, after completion of the // 2 // investigation, a challan was filed against Bhagwan and criminal case is pending against him for trial. He further contended that before cancellation of the licence of the petitioner, it was a duty of the Collector and District Registrar to serve a notice and to afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner but a bare perusal of the impugned order (Annexure-1) will show that no notice was given to the petitioner before cancellation of the licence, therefore, the impugned order has not only been passed with mala-fide but it is violative of principle of natural justice also, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned order be quashed. A notice to show cause was given to the respondent by this Court on 5th August, 2004, and, in the meantime, the operation of the order dated 24th July, 2004 was also stayed. In pursuance of the show-cause notice, the respondent filed its reply wherein it was admitted that the petitioner was issued a licence No.6/88 of document-writer and it was renewed from time to time. It was submitted that due to misconduct of the petitioner a written complaint was submitted by one employee of the respondent and, after proper enquiry in the matter by the Tehsildar-cum-Sub Registrar, it was found that the contents of the complaint were correct and, after considering the complaint as well as the enquiry-report, the licence of the petitioner was rightly cancelled. It was also contended that the complaint was sent for enquiry to the Sub Registrar, who conducted the enquiry in the matter. A written reply was filed by the petitioner and he was // 3 // heard and thereafter the enquiry-report was given by the Enquiry Officer i.e. the Sub Registrar, to the Collector, therefore, an opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner. It was, therefore, contended that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same be dismissed. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned judgment. The petitioner was granted licence No.6/88 of document- writer under Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Registration (Licensing of Document Writers) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Rules of 1956'). The said licence was renewed from time to time. The licence is granted by the District Registrar and the same can also be cancelled by the District Registrar on any of the grounds mentioned in Sub Rule (1) of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1956. However, there is a specific provision under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 11 that no licence shall be cancelled without giving the document-writer a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed cancellation. Rule 11(2) of the Rules of 1956 is reproduced as under:- “11. Cancellation of licence.-(1) A licence issued under rule 3 may be cancelled by the District Registrar on any of the following grounds:- (a) ...... ...... ...... (h) ...... (2) No licence shall be cancelled without giving the document writer a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed cancellation.” The above Rule makes it clear that the District Registrar is empowered to cancel a licence on any of the grounds mentioned // 4 // in Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1956, but the said provision is subject to Sub-Rule (2), therefore, a notice or reasonable opportunity of showing cause to the document-writer is required to be given by the cancelling authority i.e. the District Registrar. The respondent, in its reply, has contended that an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner by the Sub Registrar i.e. the Tehsildar and he gave a notice and opportunity to the petitioner but he has not denied this fact that no notice or reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner by the Collector & District Registrar himself before passing the impugned order. The impugned order dated 24th July, 2004 also makes it clear that there is no reference of giving notice or opportunity by the Collector & District Registrar to the petitioner before cancellation of licence, rather it speaks that on the basis of complaint and enquiry-report, the licence of the petitioner is cancelled with immediate effect. The giving of notice or affording a reasonable opportunity by the Sub Registrar i.e. the Enquiry Officer during enquiry of the complaint to the petitioner cannot be said to be sufficient compliance of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1956. The enquiry in the matter of complaint can be conducted by the District Registrar by appointing an enquiry officer but as and when an enquiry report is submitted before him, it becomes a duty of the District Registrar to serve a notice for proposed cancellation of licence and afford an opportunity of being heard to the licence-holder and only thereafter the licence can be cancelled. Even otherwise the principle of natural justice requires // 5 // that a person should not be condemned unheard. The giving of notice by licensing authority was necessary for cancellation of licence. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Collector and District Registrar is not only violative of principle of natural justice but it has been passed in violation of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1956 also. In these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be allowed to be sustained. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24th July, 2004 (Annexure-1) passed by the respondent is quashed and set-aside. However, a liberty is granted to the respondent to pass fresh order in the matter in accordance with law after complying with the provisions of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1956. Costs is made easy. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman// // 6 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.4457/2004 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5231/2004 Ram Dayal Sharma S/o Shri Kalyan Prasad Sharma Versus Collector and District Registrar, Karauli Date of Order ::: 09.05.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri R.P. Garg, Counsel for petitioner Smt. Sudesh Kasana, Dy. Govt. Counsel for respondent #### By the Court:- In view of the order passed in the writ petition itself, the stay application also stands disposed of. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//