SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a Deed Writer working at Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, has filed this writ petition against the order dt. 09.07.2010 whereby the respondent No. 3 has cancelled his licence dt. 05.07.1993 (Annex. 1) issued under the provisions of Rajasthan Registration (Licensing of Documents Writers) Rules, 1956. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was holding the licence as a Deed Writer since 1993. The licence was renewed from time to time upto 31.12.2007. On 18.12.2007, the petitioner has moved an application for renewal of his licence, however, no order was issued on that application, then the petitioner approached the office of District Registrar, Sri Ganganagar, whereby he was informed that inquiry will be conducted that whether the petitioner is working as Deed Writer or not. On 29.12.2008 again the petitioner applied for renewal of his licence for the year 2009. The Collector vide letter dt. 17.11.2009 has sought a report from the Sub -Registrar Anoopgarh that whether the petitioner is working as a Deed Writer or not. The Sub -Registrar vide its report dt. 04.12.2009 has submitted a report that the petitioner is working as a Deed Writer since 2007 regularly. However, the District Collector simultaneously has also issued a notice dt. 17.11.2009 (Annex. 6) to the petitioner and asked him to show cause why he has not got his licence renewed. In response to the notice dt. 17.11.2009, the petitioner has submitted a reply before the Collector and thereafter the petitioner has again submitted a representation before the District Registration Officer, Sri Ganganagar for renewal of his licence as a Deed Writer from 01.01.2010 to 31.12.2010 while stating that he has applied for renewal of his licence on 18.12.2007 for the year 2008 and on 31.12.2008 also he applied for renewal of his licence for the year 2009, however, the same is pending consideration and no decision has yet been taken and, therefore, the petitioner further prayed for renewal of his licence for the year 2010. The respondent No. 3 thereafter passed an order dt. 09.07.2010 and cancelled the licence (Annex. 1) while mentioning that the petitioner has not got his licence renewed after 2007.

(2.) A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents and it is contended that as the petitioner has failed to deposit prescribed fee along with the renewal application, therefore, the respondent No. 3 has rightly cancelled the licence of the petitioner for working as Deed Writer.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondents has argued that since the petitioner has not deposited the requisite fee in time, the respondent has rightly cancelled the licence vide order dt. 09.07.2010. Learned counsel for the respondents has failed to give any explanation regarding the renewal of licence of similarly situated persons vide Annex. 10.