RAJA SHERIFUDEN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of Certiorari to quash the order passed by the second respondent dated 16.09.1999 as confirmed by the first respondent dated 18.04.2001, cancelling the petitioner's document writers licence issued on 27.12.1983.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow campus. THE petitioner was issued a document writers licence by the Licencing Authority on 27.12.1983. THE licence contained the conditions, which have to be complied with and followed by the petitioner. THE third respondent issued a show cause notice dated 12.02.1992, stating that the value of the property in respect of a sale deed presented for registration bearing document No.920/1992 has not been truly set forth and the valuation of the said property in an earlier unregistered agreement dated 05.08.1992, was mentioned as Rs.98,910/- whereas the value in the sale deed was mentioned as Rs.58,000/- and since both the documents were prepared by the petitioner, he has violated Section 27 of the Indian Stamp Act and thereby caused loss to the State. In the show cause notice, a reference has been made to a letter dated 13.08.1996, copy of which was not furnished to the petitioner. THE petitioner in his explanation dated 17.03.1997, stated that the agreement dated 05.08.1992 is an unregistered document and the petitioner has not drafted the said document, but has only typed the said document and the draft document was produced by the parties themselves. It was further stated that after several months, when the sale deed was to be prepared, on instructions received from the parties to the transaction, the petitioner had prepared a draft and typed the same and he does not remember as to whether the schedule in the unregistered document mentioned about the thatched sets in the property and in any event, the petitioner having not drafted the unregistered document, cannot be found fault. THE second respondent by order dated 16.09.1999, cancelled the licence. Aggrieved by the such order, the petitioner prepared an appeal to the first respondent. THE first respondent did not consider the matter on merits, but rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation and confirmed the order passed by the second respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

(3.) UNDER normal circumstances, when the appeal has not been decided on merits, the matter is relegated back to the concerned authority to take a decision on merits. However, considering the fact that this writ petition has been admitted on 09.08.2001 and pending for nearly 10 years, I proceed to decide the matter on merits.