IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 20345 of 2008. Date of Decision: 20th May, 2009. Prem Kumar Singla ....Petitioner through Mr. M.K.Garg,Advocate Versus Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab & Ors. .Respondents through Mr. Palvinder Singh, Sr.DAG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 20345 and 20352 of 2008 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both these cases. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 20345 of 2008. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 18.5.2006 [Annexure P-9] passed by the Registrar-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur whereby his Deed Writer's licence has been cancelled, as well as the order dated 29.11.2006 [Annexure P-11] passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the aforementioned order. The facts on record reveal that while the petitioner has been working as a Deed Writer, his wife - Smt. Sumitra Devi Singla, was working as a Stamp Vendor. The petitioner's licence has been cancelled primarily on two counts, namely, [i] he failed to ensure the affixation of requisite stamp duty on the sale deed thereby causing loss to the State exchequer and [ii] the vendor and vendees were asked to purchase the stamp papers from the petitioner's wife so that she could get an illegal commission @2% i.e., Rs.2000/- per sale deed thereby again causing loss to the State exchequer. As far as the first ground is concerned, for the reasons already stated by this Court in CWP No. 6638 of 2008 [Surinder Kumar v State of Punjab & Ors., decided on 25.2.2009, the same can not sustain in law. The impugned order to that extent, therefore, is liable to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. Adverting to the second ground, namely, payment of illegal commission @2% per sale deed to the petitioner's wife, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that except in one sale deed, no such allegation has been established or proved. On the other hand, the impugned order suggests as if illegal commission has been paid to the petitioner's wife in six sale deeds. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the matter requires re-consideration by the Competent Authority. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.5.2006 [Annexure P-9] passed by the Registrar-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur is set aside. The order passed by the Appellate Authority is also set aside. The matter is remitted to the Registrar-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur to decide the same afresh, in accordance with law, with a specific reference to the plea taken by the petitioner that mere payment of commission @2% on one sale deed to the petitioner's wife, the severest action of cancellation of licence could not be taken. In other words, the Registrar-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur shall determine the nature and gravity of the alleged irregularity/illegality and thereafter determine the proportionate penalty, if any, that may be imposed upon the petitioner. Till the matter is decided afresh, the petitioner shall continue to work as Deed Writer. Disposed of. Dasti. May 20, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE