NIRANJAN SINGH SAINI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) <DJG>LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. </DJG> This writ petition has been filed by Shri Niranjan Singh seeking to quash show cause notice dated 23.9.1995 of Registrar (Deputy Commissioner) Sinmour (Annexure P - 4; order dated 31.10.1995 (Annexure P -6); office order dated 8.11.1995 of the Registrar (Annexure P -7); order dated 9.6.1997 of the Registrar (Licencing) Authority Sirmour District Nahan (Annexure P -10); order dated 27.6.97 issued by Registrar, Sirmour (Annexure P -l 1) and consequential order in Misc. Appeal No. 153/97 dated 13.10.1997 (Annexure P -13) recorded by Commissioner, Shimla Division being wrong, illegal, arbitrary, in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and against the letter and spirit of the Himachal Pradesh Document Writer Licencing Rules, 1971 as well as against the principles of natural justice.

(2.) The Inspector General of Registration, Himachal Pradesh under Section 16 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 with the approval of the Govt. of H.P. has framed the Himachal Pradesh Document Writers Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to the Rules). The petitioner alleged to have qualified the examination held by the Competent Authority and was granted Licence No. 1/1988 under the Rules and since 1988 he was working as Document Writer at Paonta Sahib. The petitioner alleged that on or about 25.8.1995 Sub Registrar, Paonta Sahib -respondent No.3 lodged a written complaint to the Registrar (Deputy Commissioner) - respondent No.2 Sinmour District requesting respondent No.2 to cancel the licence of the petitioner. Shri Devinder Singh Sub Registrar (Tehsildar), Paonta Sahib -respondent No.4 in the capacity of Sub Registrar on 11.8.1995 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, a copy of which has been filed with the writ petition and marked Annexure P -2 directing the petitioner to file reply to the show cause notice before 16.8.1995, which according to the petitioner was filed by him on 14.8.1995. In his reply, the stand of the petitioner was that the Document Writers are under the control and supervision of the Licencing Authority and therefore, show cause notice Annexure P -2 dated 11.8.1995 was without jurisdiction. Thereafter, 2na respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner dated 23.9.1995, a copy of the same is filed as Annexure P -4 to the writ petition asking the petitioner to explain the reason within 15 days failing which his licence would be cancelled. The petitioner stated that he submitted his reply on 4.10.1995 to the show cause notice and his defence was that the show cause notice was vague and it did not disclose specific particulars of alleged violations of the Rules. It was also submitted in the reply by the petitioner that respondent No3 who was posted at Kamrao in the year 1990, was not having good relations with the petitioner since then and had illegally issued the show cause notice to the petitioner for this reason. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 31.10.95 suspended the licence of the petitioner and appointed Shri B. R. Bhalaik, Assistant Commissioner to Deputy Commissioner, Nahan to hold enquiry and to submit a report within 15 days. On the basis of the order dated 31.10.95 respondent No. 2 issued office order dated 8.11.95 Annexure P -7 whereby the petitioners Document Writer licence was cancelled till further orders.

(3.) The petitioner alleged to have filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 2214/95 in this Court on 5.11.95 and interim direction was issued by the Court directing the respondents 1 to 3 not to pass final order, if not already passed. The petitioner on 27.12.96 through proper channel alleged to have applied for renewal of his licence of Document Writer but the same was turned down by respondent No.4 in the capacity of respondent No.3 vide letter dated 31.12.96, a copy thereof has been filed on record and marked Annexure P -8. This Court in the interim application filed with the earlier writ petition had permitted the petitioner to work as Document Writer till further orders. The writ petition No. 2214/95 was finally decided on 7.4.97 with the directions that the concerned authority, namely, Licencing Authority Sirmour at Nahan shall hear the petitioner before passing a final order on the enquiry report and if the petitioner was aggrieved by such order it was open to him to file an appeal against such order under Rule 17 of the Rules to the appropriate authority, and consequently the interim order was vacated. The petitioner also stated that respondent No.2 relied upon the report of respondent No.3 vide which the petitioner was held guilty of charging excess amounts for writing of the documents, wrong drafting as well as mis -conduct and passed the order of suspension of his licence on 9.6.97 as against the cancellation. Again vide office order dated 27.6.97 respondent No.2 declined to renew the Licence No. 1/1988 of the petitioner and ordered its cancellation with immediate effect. Against the order of cancellation, the petitioner filed a Misc. Appeal No. 153/97 before the Commissioner Shimla Division who dismissed his appeal vide order dated 13.10.97, a copy of which was filed as Annexure P -13 upholding the order of the Registrar. The petitioner has challenged the above noticed orders in this writ petition, inter alia, on the grounds that the show cause notice Annexure P -4 is vague, no specific instance of defective documents or higher charges alleged to have been charged by the petitioner have been given in the show cause notice nor the show cause notice disclosed specific particulars of alleged violations of the Rules. The respondent No.4 instead of proceeding in accordance with law did not hesitate to turn down the request of the petitioner for renewal of his licence even though he had no jurisdiction to reject the request of the petitioner. The petitioner also alleged that respondent No.2 relied upon the report of Sub Registrar, Paonta Sahib vide which the petitioner was held guilty for excess charging of amount of documents, drafting and also for misconduct and that not time limit was fixed by the Competent Authority in Annexure P -7 nor in Annexure P -JO for suspension of the licence of the petitioner and since the valuable n of the petitioner to work as Document Writer were involved, respondent No.2 has net given reasonable opportunity to him in the proceedings in order to defend himself and respondent No.2 in the order dated 9.6.1997 felt it proper to suspend the licence as against cancellation. According to the petitioner on the basis of allegations against his respondent No.2 was satisfied to suspend the licence but not to cancel his licence and thereafter vide order dated 27.6.97 Annexure P -11 instead of renewal of the licence of the petitioner, 2nd respondent ordered its cancellation with immediate effect and, thus the petitioner has been condemned twice for the same allegations. The petitioner challenged the order of the Appellate Authority on the ground that it has been passed mechanically without proper appreciation of the material on record nor any evidence led by the parties was discussed therein.