CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12585 OF 1993 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 23 ,2011 Data Ram .....Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. J. S. Maanipur, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has a grievance that his request for grant of licence as a Document Writer has not been properly considered and wrongly denied. The petitioner accordingly has filed the present writ petition, commanding the respondents to grant him licence of Document Writer under Rule 6 of the Punjab Document Writer's Licencing Rules, 1961 (for short, “the Rules”), which has been denied to him. The petitioner is resident of Village Bilaspur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar. He applied for licence of Deed CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12585 OF 1993 :{ 2 }: Writer ini Sub Tehsil Bilaspur, Tehsil Jagadhri, then District Ambala (now Yamunanagar). A written test was conducted and the petitioner appeared thereat. He was declared successful on 29.3.1988. The extract of the result is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. The petitioner moved an application for grant of licence. Sub Tehsildar, Bilaspur, then had written a letter to respondent No.3, intimating that there were six vacancies of Deed Writers and only five had been filled and one was lying vacant. Despite the existence of vacancy, the petitioner was not granted the licence. When he learnt that denial was only on the ground that the petitioner was having a licence of Stamp Vendor, he approached respondent No.2 for grant of licence, giving instances of those Document Writers, who were also having licence of Stamp Vendors. Despite this, representation of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner ultimately filed the present writ petition. The stand of the respondents in the reply is that case of the petitioner was considered on merits and it was decided that such applicants who were having Stamp Vendor's licence were not fit and eligible for grant of licence of Document Writer in view of Rule 14(i) of the Rules, which provides that the Document Writer is not supposed to engage himself in any trade or business without the previous permission of the Inspector General of Registration. Since the petitioner was already engaged in the business of stamp vendor, his request for grant of licence was not considered desirable. The eligibility for grant of licence as a Document Writer is provided in Rule 4 of the Rules. The eligibility conditions governing CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12585 OF 1993 :{ 3 }: the grant of licence is as under:- “4.Eligibility for licence.- No person shall be eligible for being licensed as a document writer or, licensed, to continue as a document writer, if such person:- (a) is less than 18 years of age; or (b) is in the employment of Government or local authority or any other person; or (c) is of unsound mind; or (d) is an undischarged insolvent; or (e) has been dismissed from the service of Government or any Local Authority; or (f) has been convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude.” Apparently, the petitioner fulfills all the eligibility conditions for grant of licence of Document Writer. Reference has been made to Rule 14(i), which provides that he shall not engage himself in any trade or business without previous permission in writing of the Inspector General of Registration. Rule 14 apparently contains condition that can be imposed in the licence. This can neither be read as a disqualification or as a condition of eligibility. Such a condition can always be imposed while granting licence to the person as Deed Writer. Even otherwise, this is not invariable or inflexible condition and can be waived by the Inspector General of Registration of documents. In my view, the respondents were not justified in declining the prayer of the petitioner for grant of licence as Document Writer. At the most, they could have imposed this condition while CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12585 OF 1993 :{ 4 }: granting licence to him. The eligibility for grant of licence is to be seen from Rule 4 of the Rules reproduced above. Rule 14(i), in my view, does not talk of either eligibility or disqualification. This only is a condition, which can be imposed in his licence once granted. The fact that some of the persons working as Stamp Vendors have been granted this licence can also not be ignored. There is no reason forthcoming as to why the petitioner alone has been denied licence on this ground whereas this has been not taken into consideration while granting licence to some of the persons who are similarly situated. Obviously in their cases, exemption would have been granted to them, which is within the purview and power of the Inspector General of Registration. Accordingly, case is made out for issuing direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of licence as Document Writer by treating him eligible for the same within a period of three months. His claim would not be declined only on the ground that he is working as a Stamp Vendor. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. March 23,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE