M A PADMANABHAIAHSWANY Vs. S A THIMMARAYA GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ABOVE appellants were not parties before the learned single Judge. However, they claim to have been aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. 18824/2006 dated 25.5.2009, therefore, they have approached this Court seeking to set aside the order of the learned single Judge.

(2.) THE facts that led to the filing of the writ petition are: That one Thimmaraya Gowda approached the learned single Judge questioning the constitutional validity of amendment to Rule 3 of the Karnataka Registration (Deed Writers Licence) Rules, 1979 (for short "the rules") published in the Gazette dated 1.3.2005 bearing No.RGN.46/2001-02 by the Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps. It was contended before the learned single Judge by the writ petitioners that by virtue of the amendment, the District Registrar was bestowed with arbitrary power to register any person who is in possession of stamp vendors license as on 31.3.2003 as a deed writer. It was also contended that without any educational qualification, mere possession of stamp vendor's licence as eligibility would lead to opening flood gates for incompetent persons being registered as deed writers. Thus, the amended rule came to be questioned on the ground that it would cause grave damage to public at large, as the amended rule was against public policy and there was no rationale for the amendment to Rule 3.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel Mr. M.S. Bhagwat appearing for the appellants, apprehension of abuse of power as noticed by the learned single Judge cannot be a ground to quash Rule 3(1)(iia), because Rule (iia) is independent of Rule 3(1)(iv) and is not against public policy. The learned counsel further contends that the rule framed is within the competence of the Government. Therefore, amendment to the rule is in order and hence the learned single Judge was not justified in striking down the said rule.