Back
1974 Supreme(Del) 66
High Court Of Delhi
NARPAT RAI SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, NEW DELHI - Respondent
Civil 237 of 1966
Decided On : 03/18/1974
B.N.KIRPAL, P.C.Khanna
The rule-making power of the Inspector General under Section 69 (1) (bb) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, is limited to the superintendence of Registration Offices and cannot extend to the private business of Document Writers.
Headnote:
DOCUMENT WRITERS LICENSING RULES, 1966 - SECTION 69 (1) (BB) OF THE INDIAN REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 - RULES FRAMED UNDER - SCOPE AND INTERPRETATION - REASONABLENESS - VALIDITY - WRIT PETITION CHALLENGING - DECISION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Document Writer, challenged the Delhi Document Writers Licensing Rules, 1966, framed under Section 69 (1) (bb) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, on grounds of excessive delegation of legislative authority and violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Rule 3 (2) of the Rules, which restricted the acceptance of documents for registration to those written by licensed Document Writers or the executant, was ultra vires and beyond the rule-making power of the Inspector General. The Court interpreted the Rules, particularly Rule 13, which prescribed the fees to be charged by Document Writers, in a limited manner. It held that the prescribed fees were binding on Document Writers only if they wrote out the document and rendered no more services, and the document was intended to be registered and the Document Writer was informed of that intent. The Court also held that the Document Writer could charge additional fees for drafting the document or providing other services beyond writing it out.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 69 (1) (bb) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, amounted to excessive delegation of legislative authority. 2. Whether the Delhi Document Writers Licensing Rules, 1966, were illegal and ultra vires of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the rule-making power of the Inspector General under Section 69 (1) (bb) was limited to the superintendence of Registration Offices and could not extend to the private business of Document Writers. 2. The Court interpreted Rule 13 of the Rules to mean that the prescribed fees were applicable only to documents written out by Document Writers for the purpose of registration and where no additional services were rendered. 3. The Court held that the Rules were not ultra vires of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution as they were reasonably interpreted to permit Document Writers to charge additional fees for drafting or other services beyond writing out the document.
Final Decision: The Court partly allowed the petition, holding Rule 3 (2) of the Rules ultra vires and interpreting the remaining Rules in a limited manner. The Court found that the Rules were not ultra vires of the Constitution or Section 69 (1) (bb) of the Registration Act.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, which is concerned with certain rules made in exercise of the powers of the Inspector General of Registration Delhi, under Section 69 (1) (b)ofthe Indian Registration Act,1908: The petitioner Shri Narpat Rai Sharma is a Writer of Documents and petitions. He claims to be carrying on the profession of petition and Documents Writsr. The rules inquestion were issued by a notification dated 1st December, 1966, published in the Delhi Gazette of that date. They regulate the writing of documents. They also limit the fees that can be charged by Document Writers. I shall presently refer to some of the rules to show that very low fees have been prescribed and the question that I have to. deal with turns on the effect of these rules. The rules are challenged by the petitioner as being framed without authority of law on the ground that Section 69 (1) (bb) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, amounts to excessive delegation of Legislative authority, and secondly, the rules are illegal and ultra vires of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. These questions depend on the reasonableness of the rules and I have been concerned with finding out the proper legal meaning to be given to the rules in question. As I have already indicated, the fees to be charged by Document Writers like the petitioner arc extremely low, and in fact, would hardly cover the typing charges for the documents concerning which the fees are to be charged. It has thus become important to determine the exact scope of the rules before the question of validity can be gone into.
( 2 ) THE petition has been heard along with four other petitions of similar Petition or Document Writers, but the challenge is exactly the same in each one of those cases, and this judgment will, therefore, dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 237 to 241 of 1966
( 3 ) BEFORE dealing with the questions raised with regard to the validity of the rules, I will proceed to analyse the same. The rules are made under Section 69 (1) (bb) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. This section does not exist in the Act as originally framed, but was introduced in 1961, by the Indian Registration (Punjab Amendment) Act, 1961, which received the assent of the President: of India on 24th April, 196l. This amending Act introduced sub-clause (bb) into the other provisions of Section 69. On 20th March, 1965, the Punjab Act was extended to the Union Territory of Delhi, by the Central Government with effect from 1st April, 1965, by exercise of the powers conferred by Section 2 of the Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950. Thus, the amended provisions of the Indian Registration Act, as applicable to -Punjab have been extended also to Delhi. Acting under the amended provisions of Section 69, the Inspector General of Registration, New Delhi,issued the impugned rules, which were described as the Delhi Document Writers Licensing Rules, 1966 . These rules were framed after previous approval of the Administrator of the Union Territory.
( 4 ) I first reproduce the relevant portion of Section 69 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, as amended, I omit the unnecessary portion. The provision reads :-
"powers of Inspector General to superintend registration offices and make rules. 69 (1 ). The Inspector General shall exercise a general superintendence over all the registration offices in the territories under the State Government, and shall have power from time to time make rules consistent with this Act. . . (bb) declaring what persons shall be permitted to act as document writers in offices of registering officers, regulating the issue of licences to such persons, the conduct of business by them, the scales of fees to be charged by them and determining the authority by which breaches of such rules shall be investigated and the penalties which may beimposed. "this provision indicates that the Inspector General cafe make rules concer
