RAM HARSH YADAV Vs. DISTRICT REGISTRAR, RAE-BARELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was a deed writer, working at Sub -Registrar Office, Mahrajganj, District Rae Bareli, was granted a licence in the year 1976, which was renewed from time to time. On 20th of March, 1993 the petitioner again applied for the renewal of his licence for writing deeds for the period commencing from 1.4.1993 to 31.3.1994, which was forwarded by Sub -Registrar, Mahrajganj to the District Registrar, Rae Bareli on the same date with his recommendation for the renewal -of the licence. A note to this effect with the signature of respondent No. 2 finds place in the said application, which has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition. On 12.3.1993 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why his licence as scribe may not be cancelled and his licence was suspended with immediate effect. The said notice was served upon the petitioner on 17.3.1993.

(2.) NO counter affidavit has been filed in the said writ petition. It is not at all clear as to why, when the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 12.3.1993 and his licence was suspended, his application was recommended by the Registrar on 20.3.1993. The said show cause notice indicated that the petitioner had used a stamp paper of Rs. 3,000/ -, irregularly/or fraudulently in the sale deed executed on 8.2.1993 by one Shri Laxmi Narain alias Buchunu in favour of Mohan Singh, minor son of Ram Lakhan Singh and Shivendra Pratap Singh, minor son of Lal Bahadur Singh after obliterating the previous writing on the stamp paper by ink remover. It was mentioned in the show cause notice that thus the petitioner has actually assisted in causing the loss of Rs. 3000/ - to the State Exchequer. On 23.3.1993 the petitioner appeared before the District Registrar and filed a reply to the show cause notice mentioning therein that the petitioner scribed the sale deed on a stamp paper which was given to him by the party concerned. He did not use stamp paper after obliterating any previous writing on the stamp paper by the Ink -remover because he was not at all required to obliterate the previous writing. He could have scored out the writing, making a note to that effect in the last stamp paper of the deed, under the signature of the vendor. It was alleged that there might be a conspiracy between the vendor of the sale deed and stamp vendor. He further averred that after the deed was scribed by the petitioner on 8.2.1993, it was placed before the Sub -Registrar - -opposite party No. 2, where the vendor of the sale deed admitted the execution of the sale deed. The stamp papers were seen and checked by the Sub -Registrar - -the opposite party No. 2 and his assistants. Nothing was found by the Sub -Registrar regarding obliteration of the previous writing on one of the stamp papers used in the sale deed. It was submitted that no evidence was made available to the petitioner alongwith the notice and the petitioner will file his final reply after he is provided with the documentary and oral evidence said to be adduced against him. He also requested for a personal hearing in the matter.

(3.) IT was alleged in the writ petition that although the statement of Rama Nand Tewari the stamp vendor and Ram Lakhan was recorded by the District Registrar but the petitioner was not given the opportunity of cross examining them.