IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 22087 of 1998 Between: A.Prabhakar Rao, S/o. Krishnaiah, Thimmanagaripalem, Hamlet of Kadivedu, Chilakur Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of A.P., Rep. by it's Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, A.P. Hyderabad. 3 The District Registrar of Assurances, Nellore, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Rules for licensing of the Document writer under chapter -XXXI of A.P. of the dDocument writer under Registration Act,1908 in so far as not specifically providing for holding of a Denovo enquiry before imposing the pubnishment of cancellation of Document writer licence on a specific allegation and the orders passed by the 2nd resondent in his processding Memo.No.X2/29389/97-2 dt.25.1.1998 and the orders passed by hte 3rd respondent in his proceedings No.TD/755/1998 dt.16-5-1998 as illegal , arbitrary, unjust , violative of Art 14,19(1)(g) and 21 of the constitution of India and set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.22087 OF 1998 O R D E R (Per Sri Justice P.V.Sanjay Kumar) The constitutional validity of Chapter XXXI of the A.P. Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, ‘the Rules’) dealing with ‘Licensing of Document writers’ is challenged in this writ petition on the specific ground that it does not provide for holding of an enquiry prior to the cancellation of a document writer’s licence. As a corollary thereof, the petitioner challenged the proceedings in Memo No.X2/29389/97-2, dated 25.01.1998 issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, A.P. Hyderabad, the second respondent herein, and the consequential orders in Proceedings No.TD/755/1998, dated 16.05.1998 passed by the District Registrar of Assurances, Nellore District, Nellore, the third respondent herein, whereby the petitioner’s document writer’s licence was cancelled with immediate effect. The petitioner is a document writer, duly licensed under Licence No.15/93, dated 07.07.1993. He practised as a document writer in the office of the Sub-Registrar at Kota, Nellore District. While so, basing upon the findings of the inspection of the said office by the officials of the Anti-Corruption Bureau on 19.09.1997, the second respondent addressed proceedings dated 25.01.1998 to the third respondent, recording the fact that the petitioner was apprehended with an amount of Rs.3,900/- which was allegedly collected as illegal gratification to be handed over to the Sub-Registrar and that the document writers, viz., the petitioner and one Sri K.Venkateswarlu, had been collecting illegal gratification for the Sub-Registrar from persons approaching the office for registration of documents. Stating so, the second respondent requested the third respondent to take steps for cancellation of the licence of the petitioner and Sri K.Venkateswarlu, after giving them an opportunity of hearing and submit a report thereafter. Consequent thereto, the third respondent issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner in Memo No.D.D.No.755/98, dated 30.03.1998, putting the petitioner on notice of the alleged violation of Rule 204(d) of the Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 and calling upon him to submit his explanation. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 12.04.1998, explaining on facts as to how he came to be in possession of the money which was seized during the inspection by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. Thereupon, the third respondent passed the impugned proceedings dated 16.05.1998, cancelling the licence of the petitioner on the ground that he had violated Rule 204(d) of the Rules. A reading of the impugned proceedings would show that the third respondent, having extracted the contents of the show-cause notice and the gist of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, baldly stated that the explanation was not convincing. Holding so, he exercised jurisdiction under Rule 214(b) of the Rules and cancelled the petitioner’s licence. The counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent seeks to supplement reasons to support the impugned proceedings. It is stated that during the proceedings recorded by the Anti-Corruption Bureau on 19.09.1997, the petitioner had not put forth the story which finds mention in his explanation dated 12.04.1998. The third respondent therefore asserted that the petitioner’s explanation was an afterthought and a fabrication to justify his being in possession of a large amount of cash. Surprisingly, this aspect does not find mention in the impugned proceedings dated 16.05.1998. Trite to state, it is not open to the authorities to seek to supplement the reasons for their orders at a later stage. An order must stand on its own footing and a counter-affidavit, as in the present case, cannot be construed to be a continuation thereof. Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older. [MOHINDER SINGH GILL V/s. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER[1] a n d COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BOMBAY V/s. GORDHANDAS BHANJI[2]]. The order cancelling the petitioner’s licence, being a terse and non-speaking one, is therefore unsustainable in law. The third respondent ought to have been conscious of the fact that in discharge of the powers conferred by Rule- 214(b) of the Rules, he was exercising quasi-judicial powers and that the cancellation of the petitioner’s licence would have serious civil consequences for him. In such a situation and in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court so very long ago, he ought to have recorded reasons as to why he found the petitioner’s explanation unconvincing. It is now too late in the day for the authorities to callously visit negative consequences upon the common man in exercise of their powers by curt and cryptic orders. The impugned proceedings dated 16.05.1998 cancelling the petitioner’s licence therefore cannot stand and are accordingly set aside. In view of this finding, we do not deem it necessary to go into the larger issue raised by the petitioner with regard to the validity of Chapter- XXXI of the Rules pertaining to licensing of document writers. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs of Rs.2,000/- payable by the third respondent to the A.P. State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, within a period of four weeks from today. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J. _________________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR, J. ________ December, 2008. PGS ( PD ) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.22087 OF 1998 (Per Sri Justice P.V.Sanjay Kumar) ________ December, 2008 [1] (1978) 1 SCC 405 [2] AIR 1952 SC 16