The date of communication of an order is essential for determining the limitation period for filing an appeal, and a document writer cannot be held responsible for the contents of a document without evidence of their involvement.

1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of Certiorari to quash the order passed by the second respondent dated 16.09.1999 as confirmed by the first respondent dated 18.04.2001, cancelling the petitioner's document writers licence issued on 27.12.1983.

2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow campus.

The petitioner was issued a document writers licence by the Licencing Authority on 27.12.1983. The licence contained the conditions, which have to be complied with and followed by the petitioner. The third respondent issued a show cause notice dated 12.02.1992, stating that the value of the property in respect of a sale deed presented for registration bearing document No.920/1992 has not been truly set forth and the valuation of the said property in an earlier unregistered agreement dated 05.08.1992, was mentioned as Rs.98,910/- whereas the value in the sale deed was mentioned as Rs.58,000/- and since both the documents were prepared by the petitioner, he has violated Section 27 of the Indian Stamp Act and thereby caused loss to the State. In the show cause notice, a reference has been made to a letter dated 13.08.1996, copy of which was not furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner in his explanation dated 17.03.1997, stated that the agreement dated 05.08.1992 is an unregistered document and the petitioner has not drafted the said document, but has only typed the said document and the draft document was produced by the parties themselves. It was further stated that after several months, when the sale deed was to be prepared, on instructions received from the parties to the transaction, the petitioner had prepared a draft and typed the same and he does not remember as to whether the schedule in the unregistered document mentioned about the thatched sets in the property and in any event, the petitioner having not drafted the unregistered document, cannot be found fault. The second respondent by order dated 16.09.1999, cancelled the licence. Aggrieved by the such order, the petitioner prepared an appeal to the first respondent. The first respondent did not consider the matter on merits, but rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation and confirmed the order passed by the second respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

4. The first question which falls for consideration is as to whether the first respondent was justified in rejecting the appeal petition as being barred by limitation. Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Document Writer Licence Rules 1982, states that an appeal against the order of the Licensing Authority shall lie to the State Government within two months from the date of the order. By relying upon the said provision, the Government rejected the petitioner's appeal as it was not been presented within 2 months from the date of the order of cancellation of the document writer's licence. The second respondent cancelled the licence by order dated 16.09.1999 and the appeal was presented on 27.12.1999 and therefore, the State Government held that the appeal is barred by limitation. However, one crucial fact, which was not taken into consideration is the date of communication of the order passed by the second respondent to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the order passed by the second respondent dated 16.09.1999, cancelling the document writer's licence was communicated to the petitioner only on 13.12.1999. Therefore, the correct interpretation would be that the period of limitation shall commence from the date on which the petitioner received such order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.Saibaba vs. Bar Council of India [(2003) 6 SCC 186], held that the words “the date of that order” must be construed as meaning the date of communication or knowledge, actual or constructive of the order sought to be reviewed. Therefore, the