DIVAKAR Vs. COMMR OF REGISTRATION AND STAMPS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER HAD SOUGHT FOR ISSUE OF WHAT IS KNOWN AS DEED WRITERS' licence IN HIS FAVOUR BY MAKING AN APPLICATION TO THE LICENSING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA REGISTRATION (DEED WRITERS' licence) RULES, 1979. THE REQUEST ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER HAVING BEEN declined BY THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR FOR STAMPS, SHIMOGA DISTRICT, SHIMOGA AS PER ENDORSEMENT DATED NIL, COPY AT ANNEXURE-K, PETITIONER HAS approached THIS COURT FOR QUASHING OF THIS ENDORSEMENT AND FOR ISSUE OF a WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE 2nd RESPONDENT-INSPECTOR GENERAL OF STAMPS IN KARNATAKA TO HOLD AN EXAMINATION AS CONTEMPLATED under RULE 19 OF THE RULES, NON- QUALIFICATION OF THE PETITIONER UNDER which RULES HAS BEEN HELD AGAINST HIM FOR DENYING DEED WRITERS' LICENCE.

(2.) SRI M. R. RAJAGOPAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER SUBMITS THAT IT IS NOT FAIR OR PROPER ON THE PART OF THE 3rd RESPONDENT TO HAVE refused TO ISSUE HIM WITH LICENCE WHEN THE AUTHORITIES THEMSELVES HAVE not HELD ANY EXAMINATION FOR THE PAST ABOUT NINE YEARS WHICH COULD HAVE enabled THE PETITIONER TO APPEAR AND QUALIFY HIMSELF IN SUCH EXAMINATION AND AS SUCH LACK OF QUALIFICATION IN THE SAID EXAMINATION/test SHOULD not BE PUT AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR DEPRIVING HIM OF A DEED WRITERS' licence. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE PETITIONER WAS EARLIER CARRYING ON THE AVOCATION OF STAMP VENDOR AND THE PERIOD FOR WHICH HE HAS been PERMITTED TO CARRY ON THIS AVOCATION HAVING COME TO AN END DURING december 2000 AND HE HAVING NO OTHER AVOCATION HAS SOUGHT FOR DEED writers' LICENCE WHICH HE IS COMPETENT TO UNDERTAKE.

(3.) STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS HAS BEEN FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS. SRI B. P. PUTTASIDDAIAH, LEARNED GOVERNMENT PLEADER APPEARING FOR THE respondents POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS A PREREQUISITE FOR ISSUE OF A LICENCE under RULE 3 OF THE RULES THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE A PERSON WHO HAS passed DEED WRITERS' LICENSING TEST, THE STIPULATED QUALIFICATION PRESCRIBED IN SUB-CLAUSE (IV) OF SUB-RULE (1) OF RULE 3. PETITIONER NOT HAVING such QUALIFICATION STIPULATED IN CLAUSE (IV) OF SUB-RULE (1) OF RULE 3 HIS application HAS BEEN RIGHTLY REJECTED. LEARNED GOVERNMENT PLEADER SUBMITS THAT THE ORDER IMPUGNED IS VALID IN LAW AND THE WRIT PETITION HAS TO be DISMISSED.