SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 21. 5. 2007, passed by the Financial Commissioner Revenue (P-1), upholding the view taken by the Commissioner, patiala Division, Patiala, in his order dated 24. 10. 2006 (P-2) and that of registrar-cum-Deputy Commissioner, sangrur, in his order dated 14. 3. 2005 (P-3 ). The petitioner has been held guilty of violating Rule 14 (g) of the Punjab document-Writers Licensing Rules, 1961 (for brevity, the Rules') and his licence of deed writer has been cancelled.

(2.) THE petitioner is a document writer, who has scribed Vasika No. 4020, dated 20. 1. 2005, on behalf of one Smt. Sunita Rani w/o Shri Pradeep Kumar, resident of Dhuri, in favour of Shri Haripal son of Shri Bant ram and Smt. Neera Gupta wife of Shri haripal, resident of Dhuri, for a consideration of Rs. 1,75,000/-, in respect of shop measuring 200 Sq. feet. The price of the land claimed by the respondents is Rs. 5,00,000/ -. The petitioner is alleged to have scribed the document by showing that only ground floor of the shop has been built whereas according to the report of the Patwari, the first floor was also there. The allegation against the petitioner is that he connived with the vendor and vendees with an intention to cause loss to the public exchequer by concealing the second floor building. The aforementioned irregularities were brought to the notice of the Registrar-cum-Deputy Commissioner by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, dhuri, vide his letter dated 9. 2. 2005. As a consequence, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 18. 2. 2005, who contested the allegation by submitting reply dated 28. 2. 2005. He took the defence that he has scribed the deed according to what has been shown to him and he did not commit any fault. The Registrar-cum-Deputy Commissioner found that the petitioner has committed violation of the conditions of his licence as envisaged by Rule 14 (g)of the Rules. The operative part of the order dated 14. 3. 2005 (P-3), passed by the Registrar-cum-Deputy Commissioner reads, thus:-

(3.) FEELING aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Divisional Commissioner, patiala Division, Patiala, by filing an appeal under Rule 16 of the Rules. The Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, in her order has conceded that technically it was not the job of the document writer to record the correct facts, yet, she invoked the rules to read duties of the document writer holding that he should have been careful in recording clear facts. She has further held that whenever a document writer is not satisfied with the description of the property, he must always point out to his client rather than aiding the concealment in connivance with them, as it would result in avoidance of payment of stamp duty and registration fee, which is chargeable by the public exchequer. Accordingly, she dismissed the appeal, vide order dated 24. 10. 2006 (P-2 ). The petitioner again tried his luck by filing a second appeal under Rule 16 (2) of the Rules, before the Financial Commissioner Revenue, punjab. She also dismissed the appeal upholding the order passed by the registrarcum-Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur and divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, patiala, by holding that it was imperative for the petitioner to ensure that the document was properly valued. It has further been held that he has under-valued the document in connivance with the parties, which prove his mala fide intention.