RAM DAYAL Vs. REGISTRAR OF REGISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has alleged that he is a resident of Sirhind City and started working as a document -writer in village Harlalpur, Tehsil Sirhind, District Patiala, sometime in the year 1954. The case as further laid in the writ petition is that after working in village Harlalpur for four years, he shifted to Sirhind and continued in his profession of a Document writer. The Inspector -General of Registration, Punjab, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Clause (bb) of Sub -section (1) of Section 69 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (Act XVI of 1908), framed the Punjab Document Writers Licensing Rules, 1961 (hereinafter called the Rules). The Rules came into force with effect from 5th January, 1962. Rule 4 lays down the condition of eligibility for licence to practise the profession of a document -writer. It is in the following terms:

(2.) IT is also a common ground before me that this licence was renewed for the years 1966 and 1967. After the renewal for the year 1967, a communication, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure A -3 with the writ petition, was received by the Petitioner informing him that there was an allegation that he had obtained the licence in the year 1965 on misrepresentation of facts to the Registrar inasmuch as he had not completed seven years in the profession which could make him eligible for the licence. The Petitioner was further called upon to bring the necessary documentary evidence to rebut the allegation against him. He was also required to send a reply which was to reach the office of the Registrar within fifteen days. The Petitioner submitted his explanation on 27th March, 1967, copy whereof has been appended as Annexure A -4 with the writ petition. The Petitioner reiterated that he had been practising for more than seven years and that the Registrar was satisfied with the proof furnished by the Petitioner before the licence was issued. No further enquiry seems to have been held after the receipt of the explanation and the Registrar by the impugned order, dated 24th April, 1968, copy whereof is Annexure A -5, cancelled the licence of the Petitioner by holding that the latter was not eligible for the grant of a licence according to Rule 5 and Rule 114.. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been preferred.

(3.) THE return filed by the Registrar is almost evasive and drafted in a manner so as to only admit or deny the allegations without trying to assist this Court by giving proper information. In para 19 of the writ petition, the petition specifically alleged that no notice or opportunity had been given to him by the Registrar or any other authority before cancelling the licence. The reply of the Respondent Registrar to this averment is that the allegation is not admit -ed. At the same time it is asserted that no notice was required to be given in cancelling the licence. The assertion is that it is only when there is violation of the conditions of the licence as enumerated in Rule 14 that a notice is to be sent to the defaulter before taking action.