S M JOTHIRAMALINGAM VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT STATE OF TAMIL NADU COMMERCIAL TAXES AND REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Government order issued in G.O. Ms. No:63, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, dated 28.01.2008 issued by the Secretary to Government, the 1st Respondent herein, has been called in question wherein the 1st Respondent has passed an order cancelling the license of the Petitioner as Document Writer.

(2.) It is the case of the Petitioner that his father was a document writer and due to his very old age, he had discontinued the work after rendering 35 years of service in the field of document writing. While he was functioning, the Petitioner had been with him for a long time and applied for document writer license and it was issued to him vide Dr. License No: A-1125/99 - V.G.R., Virudhunagar dated19.03.1999 and it was valid upto 31.12.2008 and after that it was to be renewed by the Inspector General of Registration once in five years. While so, a show cause notice dated 02.03.1995 was issued to him by the 2nd Respondent, wherein it has been alleged that as per the report of the District Registrar dated 15.12.2004, one Tmt. Valliammal approached the Document Writer Thiru.Jothiramalingam, the Petitioner herein, and requested him to prepare a Rectification Deed to Document No: 198/94 in respect of incorrect survey number and difference in extent of Land Measurement in that document registered on 04.03.1994, for which the document writer told her that he was not able to write rectification deed but a new sale deed has to be written and for registration, an amount of Rs. 15,000/-would be required; despite her repeated requests to prepare a rectification deed, he had not prepared Rectification Deed, but a new Sale Deed was prepared and registered as Document No. 1814 / 2003, for which he demanded money to get back the document from the Registration Office, following which the said Valliammal complained the matter to the District Registrar, pursuant to which, the District Registrar recommended that his Licence may be temporarily cancelled. It is further alleged that the act of the Document Writer was in violation of conditions 5 (d) and (g) of Tamil Nadu Document Writer Licence Rules, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'), and hence in accordance with Rule 16 (3) of the Rules, he was directed to submit an explanation as to why his licence should not be cancelled permanently. He had submitted his explanation on 24.03.2005 denying the allegations with material evidence stating that the said Valliammal had presented the Sale Deed vide Document No: 106/93 and requested to prepare a Sale Deed and accordingly, the sale deed was prepared and registered.

(3.) The further case of the Petitioner is that the 2nd Respondent in his proceedings dated 10.11.2005 issued an order cancelling his Document Writer Licence temporarily for a period of six months. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred an appeal before the 1st Respondent herein on 29.12.2005. Thereafter, the 1st Respondent passed an order cancelling the Petitioner's Document Writer Licence permanently. Challenging the said order on the ground that permanent cancellation of licence is contrary to law, illegal, untenable and unsustainable, the Petitioner is before this Court.