C.W.P NO. 6638 OF 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 6638 OF 2008 DECIDED ON : 25.02.2009 Surinder Kumar ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. H. N. Mehtani, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional AG, Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 5. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is a licensed Document Writer at Ahmedgarh, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur. He seeks quashing of the order dated 16.12.2002 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Registrar-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur, whereby his license has been cancelled, as well as, the order dated 22.01.2008 (Annexure P-11), vide which the appeal preferred by the State of Punjab against the order of the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala dated 26.02.2004, has been accepted and the Registrar-cum-Deputy Commissioner's order dated 16.12.2002 has been upheld. C.W.P NO. 6638 OF 2008 -2- The petitioner was granted the document's writer license No. 13/DWL/84. He was served with a Show Cause Notice dated 16.10.2002 (Annexure P-4) alleging that 1(i) – he had scribed deed No.919 dated 26.08.2002 on the stamp papers of under value and (ii) one Hem Raj is un-authorizedly working along with him. The petitioner submitted his reply and denied the allegations. The Registrar-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur vide his impugned order dated 02.12.2002 did not find the petitioner's explanation satisfactory and cancelled the license. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, which was allowed in his favour vide order dated 26.02.2004 (Annexure P-9) and the order passed by the Registrar-cum-Commissioner, Sangrur was set aside. Aggrieved, the State of Punjab went in appeal before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 22.01.2008 (Annexure P-11), upholding the order dated 16.12.2002 passed by the Registrar-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The document writer's license is governed by the Rules known as the Punjab Document Writer's License Rules, 1961. Rule 14 describes the conditions of license. Clause (e) and (g) of C.W.P NO. 6638 OF 2008 -3- Rule 14 being relevant are reproduced below: “14. a condition of license – A document writer - (a) to (d) xxxxxx (e) shall not dictate any document or cause a document written by any other person; (f) xxxxxx (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:” The two allegations levelled against the petitioner are based upon the alleged violation of Clause (e) and (g), reproduced above. As regards the alleged violation of Clause (e) of Rule 14, it is not in dispute that the disputed documents were scribed by the petitioner on the stamp papers affixed as per the sale consideration mentioned in the agreement to sell. The question as to whether or not the stamp duty has been affixed as per the prevalent market value of the property, can be determined only by the Collector in exercise of his powers under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. A document writer does not enjoy any such authority under the law. As a matter of fact the government instructions dated 18.01.2002 (Annexure P-13) explicitly clarify that no Sub-Registrar has been authorized to C.W.P NO. 6638 OF 2008 -4- direct the document writers not to scribe an instrument on the plea of under valuation. The instructions provide that such an exercise has to be undertaken by the Competent Authority under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. Charge No.1 levelled against the petitioner, thus, is completely misplaced. As regards the charge No.2, the petitioner has candidly admitted that Hem Raj is working with him but not as a document writer, rather is employed for miscellaneous works like cleaning of office etc. No instrument, whatsoever, purported to have been scribed by the said Hem Raj has been produced by the respondents. In the absence of such a material, the second charge also cannot be said to have been proved against the petitioner. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 16.12.2002 (Annexure P-6) 22.01.2008 (Annexure P-11), are hereby quashed. No costs. FEBRUARY 25, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE