IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 24060 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SMT. BALAMANI M, ODATHODE HOUSE, CHULLYODE P.O., CHETTIPADAM, VIA NELAMBOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL. S RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION (LICENSING) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNEMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI K. RAMESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX EXT.P1-TRUE COPY OF SCRIBE LICENSE ISSUED BY R1 DT.25.10.9 EXT.P2-TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.23.9.08 EXT.P3-TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.23.9.2008 EXT.P3(A) - TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 3.11.08 OF R1 EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF GO DATED 24.12.2005 EXT.P5-TRUE COPY OF ORDER ON COMPLAINT NO.1311/04 OF LOK AYUKTHA DT.24.1.05 // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 24060 of 2009-B - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3(a) letter issued by the first respondent stating that the petitioner is not entitled for issuance of Document Writers’ Licence under Rule 5 (B) of the Kerala Document Writer Licence Rules, 1960. 2. The petitioner is a Scribe who is licensed under the MSA Rules and Ext.P1 is the copy of the licence. She is stated to be engaged in the preparation of documents for the last 18 years. Seeking for exemption under the provision to Rule 5 of the relevant rules, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application and Ext.P3 is the copy of the further representation. 3. It is pointed out that under Rule 27 of the Rules, a pass in SSLC is the minimum qualification for admission to the Document Writers’ Licensing Test. But under the proviso to Rule 5, the Government may, in appropriate cases exempt any person or class of persons from the provisions of Rule 5. Such exemption sought by the petitioner, has not been considered by the Government. It is pointed out that it is up to the Government to consider the application for exemption whereas, herein by wpc24060 /2009 2 Ext.P3(a) the Inspector General of Registration has chosen to reject the application. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is mentioned that the petitioner does not have any qualification to seek the protection of the Rule and therefore the application is not liable to be granted. 5. The petitioner's application is one seeking exemption from the rule, as she has not passed SSLC. The proviso to Rule 5 gives power to the Government to exempt any person or persons from the provisions of the said rule. It is true that under Rule 27 a pass in SSLC or its equivalent shall be the minimum qualification for admission to the Document Writers’ Licensing Test. Under Rule 5, a document writers’ licence can be granted to any person who has passed the Document Writers’ Licensing Test. It is up to the Government to grant exemption, going by the proviso. Herein, the application Ext.P2 is one seeking exemption from the rule. The same was submitted through the Inspector General of Registration. Since the power is vested with the Government, it is only the Government which can take a decision. Ext.P3 is the representation submitted by the petitioner before the Government in the matter. In that view of the matter, the action taken by the Inspector General of Registration to reject the same cannot be wpc24060 /2009 3 supported. Ext.P3(a) is therefore set aside. There will be a direction to the Government to take a decision on Ext.P3 in the light of the proviso to Rule 5(B) of the Rules, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/