K ARUNACHALAM PILLAI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the second respondent dated 8.6.1994, which is impugned in the above writ petition, temporily suspending the licence of the petitioners to write documents, granted under the Tamil Nadu Document Writers' Licence Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') for having written the documents on spurious stamp papers, the petitioners seek a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the concerned records from the file of the second respondent in Ref.No.13946/13/93, quash the order dated 8.6.1994 in so far as it relates to the petitioners and consequently, direct the respondents to forbear from interfering with the profession of the petitioners, contending that the impugned order of temporary suspension of the licence, issued by the second respondent exercising the powers under Rule 16(2) of the Rules, without specifying the time limit is arbitrary, unreasonable, without jurisdiction, contrary to the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) 1 Mr.K. Chandru, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners invited my attention to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with suspension and cancellation of the licence, and Rule 17, which provides for an appeal against the orders passed under Rule 16 of the Rules, which read as follows: Rule 16 :- Suspension and cancellation of the licence: (1) The District Registrar shall have the power to suspend the licence of the document writer in his district for a period not exceeding a month at a time for misconduct or unsatisfactory work. (2) The Licensing Authority shall have power to suspend for any length of time the licence of a document writer for misconduct or unsatisfactory work. (3) The Licensing Authority shall have the powers to revoke or cancel the licence of a document writer for misconduct or unsatisfactory work or for any disqualification prescribed in Rule 5 or for breach of any of the conditions of the licence, after giving him an opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him. Rule 17 Appeals: (a) An appeal against an order passed by the District Registrar under Rule 16 shall be made to the Licensing Authority within two months from the date of the order. (b) An appeal against the orders of the Licensing Authority shall be made to the State Government within two months from the date of the order. 2.2. Mr.K. Chandru, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, contends that the District Register is empowered to suspend the licence of the document writers in his District for a period not exceeding one month at a time, for misconduct or unsatisfactory work, by exercising the power under Rule 16(1) of the Rules. However, the Licensing Authority shall have the power to suspend the licence of the document writer for any length of time for misconduct or unsatisfactory work, by exercising the powers under Rule 16(2) of the Rules. 2.3 According to Mr.K. Chandru, learned senior counsel if the Licensing Authority proposes to revoke or cancel the licence of the document writer for misconduct or unsatisfactory work or for any disqualification prescribed in Rule 5 of the Rules or for breach of any of the conditions of the licence, it should be done only after giving them an opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken. It is therefore contended that the Rules 16(1) and 16(2) of the Rules empower the District Registrar and the Licensing Authority respectively, only to pass an interim suspension order for the alleged misconduct and unsatisfactory work, which may be one of the grounds for revoking or cancelling the licence of the document writers, among other grounds, such as unsatisfactory work or disqualification prescribed under Rule 5 of the Rules, or breach of any of the conditions of the licence, as the case may be, and after giving a sufficient opportunity to the document writer to show cause against such action of revoking or cancelling the licence. As Rules 16(1) and 16(2) of the Rules could be invoked only for the purpose of passing an interim order of suspension the second respondent Licensing Authority, has no power and jurisdiction to suspend the licence of the petitioners permanently or for indefinite period of time, even though the words...., to suspend.... for a period not exceeding a month at a time, employed in Rule 16(1) of the Rules enable the District Registrar to extend the time of suspension or the words... to suspend ....for any length of time ...., employed, indicate that the Licensing Authority may suspend the licence for more than a month at a time for misconduct and unsatisfactory work. In this regard, Mr.K. Chandru, learned Senior Counsel relied on the decision in Palani Co-op Sales Society v. Presiding Officer, AIR 1975 Mad. 241(FB). 2.4 Inviting my attention to Abdul Kalam v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, 1992 (1) MLJ 317, Mr.K. Chandru, learned Senior counsel, interpreting Rule 16(3) of the Rules contends that since the misconduct and unsatisfactory work are one of the grounds to revoke or cancel the licence as per Rule 16(3) of the Rules, which provides an opportunity to show cause to the petitioner against the proposed revocation or cancellation of licence, there cannot be a suspension without prescribing the period as proposed in the impugned proceedings invoking Rule 16(2) of the Rules, as the same is contrary to the very object and intention of the Legislature sought to be achieved under Rule 16(3) of the Rules. 2.5 Mr.K. Chandru, learned senior counsel further contends that, in any event, the impugned proceedings suspending the licence of the petitioner without any time limit is arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, liable to be quashed. 2.6. Mr.K. Chandru, learned senior counsel, also contends that the alternative remedy provided by way of an appeal under Rule 17 of the Rules against the impugned proceedings, cannot be a remedy to the petitioner, as the impugned order cannot be considered as the final order made under Rule 16(2) of the Rules.