PATNAM DURGESH BABU Vs. DISTRICT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The Writ Petition is being disposed of with their consent at this stage as the parties have been heard and pleadings are complete.

(2.) The petitioner was a licensed Document Writer. His licence was in force till 1-1-2000, Before the expiry of the term of the licence he moved an application for its renewal in terms of Rule 202 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act 1908. This was rejected by the impugned order. The impugned order dated 9-2-2000 is reproduced below: "In view of the cause of the detection of gross "under valuation" on the following documents drafted by Sri Patnam Durgesh Babu, R. I. No. 14599 resulting loss of revenue to a tune of Rs. 32,895 to the State exchequer a detailed enquiry is under process for which separate action being initiated against Sri Patnam Durgesh Babu, D.W. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_676_ALT6_2000Html1.htm</FRM> Therefore his appeal for renewal of his licence for the year 2000 is hereby rejected in the interest of safeguarding the Govt. revenue. He is permitted to prefer an appeal before appellate authority." The petitioner submits that, earlier also the licence of the petitioner was suspended but the order was revoked in pursuance to the High Court order passed in W.P.No. 17141 of 1999 dated 13-8-1999. The impugned order is mainly challenged on two grounds, one that under the rules it is not the duty of the Document Writer to ascertain the value of the property with respect to which he scribes a document. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, even otherwise it is not possible for a document writer to know the exact value of the property with respect to which a document is being written if the parties to the transaction decide not to disclose the true value of the property. Secondly it is contended that the renewal as a matter of fact is an automatic process and renewal has to be given in terms of Rule 202 if there is no material before the Licensing Authority to refuse renewal on the ground of breach of any of conditions of licence as laid down in Rule 204. He submits that, under Rule 204 conditions of licence have been given and the petitioner is not accused of having violated any of those conditions. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents submits that, it is not a matter of right to get a licence extended or renewed beyond the period but it is discretion with the Licensing Authority.

(3.) It is true that the licensing authority has discretion to extend the period of licence or not to extend, but that does not mean that he can reject renewal of licence on grounds which are not legal or permissible. The ground on which the renewal has been refused in this case is that the petitioner was responsible for undervaluation of certain documents. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that, it would not be possible for the document writer to ascertain the true value of the property with respect to which a document is being written, appears to be sound and correct. But, the learned Counsel for the respondents relies on condition (j) of Rule 204 which is reproduced below: