Back
2008 Supreme(P&H) 835
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M.Kumar and Sabina JJ.
Om Parkash
Versus
State Of Punjab
Decided On : APRIL 4, 2008
The cancellation of a document writer's licence must be in accordance with the rules, and the principles of natural justice must be followed in the renewal process.
Headnote:
Document Writer - Punjab Document Writers Licencing Rules - Rule 14, Rule 15, Rule 12 - The court discussed the provisions of the Punjab Document Writers Licencing Rules, particularly Rule 14, Rule 15, and Rule 12, which outline the conditions of the licence, penalties for breach of conditions, and the renewal process. The court emphasized that the rules do not provide for the cancellation of a licence due to absence from the place of work and highlighted the requirement for natural justice in the renewal process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a document writer, had his licence cancelled due to alleged non-regular work, causing difficulty for the public in purchasing stamps. The Commissioner reversed the cancellation, but the Financial Commissioner upheld it. The petitioner appealed to the court seeking restoration of the licence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of the licence was not justified as the rules did not allow for it based on absence from work. The court also noted the lack of notice and legitimate expectation in the renewal process. The petitioner's absence was found to be justified due to a family emergency, and the presence of other document writers to serve the public.
Issues: Cancellation of document writer's licence, Compliance with natural justice in licence renewal
Ratio Decidendi: The cancellation of the licence was not in accordance with the rules, and the principles of natural justice must be followed in the renewal process.
Final Decision: The court set aside the orders cancelling the petitioner's licence and directed the restoration of the licence. The petitioner was awarded costs of Rs. 2,500.
M.M.Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner who is document writer at sub Tehsil Longowal, Tehsil and District Sangrur was granted document writing licence No. 1/DWL/89 in the year 1989 under the Punjab Document Writers Licencing Rules, 1961 (for brevity the Rules) by the Registrar cum Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur. He has been working as Document Writer since then at sub Tehsil Longowal. He also holds the licence of Stamp Vendor under the Punjab Stamp Vendors Licensing Rules, 1934 . He is aggrieved by the order dated 12.5.2002 passed by the Registrar cum-Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur ( Annexure P.1) cancelling his deed writing licence and order dated 17.9.2007 (Annexure P.7) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) upholding the order dated 12.5.2002 despite the fact that the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala has reversed the order of the Registrar cum Deputy Commissioner vide his order dated 17.3.2004 (annexure P.6).
2. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 26.3.2002 by the Collector cum Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur alleging that a report dated 7.3.2002 has been sent by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sangrur to the effect that the petitioner was not working as document writer in the sub Tehsil Longowal for the last about two weeks and before that he was not working for a long time. On account of his non working the people of Longowal were facing great difficulty in purchasing stamps. The petitioner sent reply but the same was not considered satisfactory by the Registrar -cum-Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur and accordingly he passed a cryptic and non speaking order on 12.5.2002 which reads thus:
Sh. Om Parkash Deed Writer, Sub Tehsil Longowal was not doing his work regularly in Sub Tehsil Longowal. As a consequence thereof public was experiencing great difficulty. A report was received in this connection from Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sangrur vide No. 360/RC dated 7.3.2002 in this office. A show cause notice was issued to Sh. Om Parkash Deed Writer Longowal in this connection vide this office letter N0.88/HRS dated 5.4.02. He has given his reply thereto on 22.4.02. After looking into the reply of Sh. Om Parkash Deed Writer Longowal it has been found-unsatisfactory. Keeping public interest in view the deed writing licence 1/DWL/89 of Shri Om Parkash Deed Writer is hereby cancelled.
3. The petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 16 of the Rules before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and succeeded in perusading the Commissioner to accept the appeal. The Commissioner on 17.3.2004 (Annexure P.6) recorded a finding that it has been revealed from the record that the petitioner was not willfully absent from duty and that the order cancelling his licence has been passed at his back. However, the respondent-State feeling aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner filed an appeal before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue)-respondent No. 3. The appeal was accepted and order passed by the Registrar cum Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur on 12.5.2002 was restored. The operative part of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner is explicit from perusal of para 5 which reads thus:
I have heard arguments put forth by both the counsel and also the written arguments filed by the counsel for the respondent and record of the lower courts. It is provided under rule 16 of the Punjab Document Writers Licensing rules 1961 that "Any person" aggrieved may prefer appeal. Any person under rules ibid means the State also. Hence the maintainability of present appeal is not questionable. The respondent remained absent for months together and as such caused undue harassment to public/litigants. Moreover the respondent is having Stamp Vendee Licence also. I am therefore inclined to agree with the averments put forth by the Senior State counsel, accept the appeal and uphold the order dated 12.5.2002 of the Registrar Sangrur and set aside the order dated 17.3.2004 of the Commissioner.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for
