V. GOVINDARAJAN Vs. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition challenging the order dated 21.07.2015, whereby the first respondent refused to renew the document writer licence issued to the petitioner, which deprived him to practice such profession of document writer.

(2.) The petitioner is a document writer by profession and he acquired such skill of writing documents by experience. The petitioner obtained a licence issued by the first respondent in the year 1977. Thereafter, The Tamil Nadu Document Writers Licence Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as The Rules) came into force with effect from 12.04.1982. As per Rule 12 of The Rules, such licence issued to a document writer has to be renewed once in five years. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he renewed his licence periodically from time to time and lastly, his licence was renewed on 13.01.1997 with effect from 01.01.1997 and it has it's validity till 31.12.2002. However, even before expiry of the licence, the petitioner got selected and appointed to the post of Village Administrative Officer in Tiruchengode Taluk and therefore, he could not renew the licence. According to the petitioner, he retired from his service on 31.08.2014. After his retirement, as there is no embargo for the petitioner to carry on his profession of document writer, he submitted an application to the second respondent and sought for renewal of his licence by remitting the necessary fee. The application submitted by the petitioner was forwarded by the second respondent to the first respondent on 08.12.2014 seeking clarification as to whether the renewal of document writer's licence can be granted and/or renewed in favour of the petitioner who retired from government service and in receipt of pension.

(3.) According to the petitioner, his retirement from government service or receipt of pension has nothing to do with the renewal of license. Therefore, challenging the letter dated 08.12.2014 of the second respondent, the petitioner filed WP No. 1460 of 2015. By an order dated 22.01.2015, this Court by referring to the profession of Advocates who after their retirement from government service used to practice law, issued a direction to the first respondent to issue appropriate clarification to the second respondent within eight weeks. In the order dated 22.01.2015, it was also observed that there is no statutory prohibition for renewing the licence in favour of the petitioner. Inspite of such direction issued by this Court, the first respondent sent a communication dated 10.02.2015 to the second respondent purported to be a clarification stating that there is no provision to renew the licence in favour of the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed yet another writ petition in WP No. 11531 of 2015. By order dated 21.04.2015, this Court passed an order in WP No. 11531 of 2015 directing the first respondent to take note of the earlier order dated 22.01.2015 passed in WP No. 1460 of 2015 filed by the petitioner and to pass orders thereon within a period of six weeks.