MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a matriculate. He wants to practise as a Document Writer in the district of Sirmour. For that he needs a licence under the Himachal Pradesh Document Writers Licencing Rules, 1971 (referred to as the Rules). Unless a document is written by a licensed document writer, it will not be accepted by the Registering Officer of documents. The Rules require a person to pass an examination before he can be granted the licence. The petitioner deposited the requisite fee and the testimonials with the Licencing Authority, that is, the Registrar of Registration, District Sirmour. The application was accepted and entered in the register maintained for that purpose. 25th May, 1978 was notified as the date of the special examination for issuing fresh licences. The petitioner was allowed to appear. But his result was withheld. On 24th October, 1978 the petitioner received a Memo, dated 17th October, 1978 from the Inspector General of Registration, Himachal Pradesh (respondent No. 2) informing the petitioner that his result has not been declared because he was not eligible to be a candidate for the examination and that his name was wrongly sent by the Registrar of Registration (respondent No. 3). The petitioner challenges the decision of the respondents declaring the petitioner disqualified to take the examination.

(2.) Rule 4 lays down the disqualifications of a person to become a document writer. One of the dis -qualifications is the conviction of an offence involving moral turpitude. The relevant part of this rule reads; "4. No person shall be eligible for being licensed as a document -writer or, if licenced, to continue as a document -writer if such person - ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ (f) has been convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude." A person desirous of taking the examination is required to submit an application giving informations required under Rule 7. One of the informations rt equired from an applicant is : "Whether the applicant was ever convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude - The application submitted by a candidate is scrutinized by the Licencing Authority (Rule 9). In case the applicant is found ineligible /for obtaining a licence under Rule 4 the Licencing Authority may reject the application. The Rules require that names of the applicants, whose applications have been accepted, be entered in the register maintained by the Licencing Authority. These applicants are entitled to sit in the examination the syllabus of which is prescribed under Rule 9. The result of the examination is to be notified in the official gazette and in one of the daily newspapers having wide publicity in the State. After the publication of the result, the Inspector General of Registration is required to prepare a merit list in respect of each registration district containing the names of candidates of that district.

(3.) Now the petitioner had once been convicted under the Opium Act, This conviction is of 1961. He was found in possession of opium. He was sentenced to imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 200/ -. This fact he has mentioned in his application. The petitioner states "in his affidavit that he had met respondent No. 3 and explained to him the circumstances in which he was convicted. It is further stated that respondent No 3 after verying the facts from the police station Nahan, asked the petitioner to submit a certificate of his moral character from the President of Municipal Committee, Nahan, district Sirmour. The petitioner, therefore, obtained a certificate of good moral character on 28th November, 1977 from the President, and submitted it to respondent No.3.