Back
2024 Supreme(Tri) 45
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.
Gautam Kumar Das S/o Late Prabodh Ranjan Das - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tripura - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 719 of 2024
Decided On : 25-11-2024
For the Appellant : S. Bhattacharjee
For the Respondent: K. De
The petitioner failed to establish locus standi in challenging the issuance of new deed writer licenses, affirming that administrative discretion under Rule 126 is valid.
Headnote:(A) Tripura Registration (Amendment) Rules, 1989 - Rule 126 - Challenging the issuance of new deed writer licenses - Court ruled that existing deed writers could not claim a monopoly, and the number of deed writers is at the discretion of the Registrar - Petitioner failed to demonstrate any violation of rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution - Court upheld the validity of the notifications issued by the respondents. (Paras 3, 5, 8)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The locus standi of a petitioner challenging administrative actions must clearly demonstrate personal rights or interest impacted.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner could not establish a legitimate right or locus standi to challenge the notifications issued by the respondents.
Issues: The main issue involved whether the issuance of new deed writer licenses infringed the rights of existing deed writers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that there cannot be a monopoly in issuing licenses and the petitioner's arguments lacked merit as they did not meet the stipulations of Rule 126.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. notification for new deed writer license issuance contested. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's argument against new licenses issuance. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis on locus standi and rights. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. writ petition dismissed for lack of merit. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT :
T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. De, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents-State.
2. The brief facts of the case is that by a notification dated 14.08.2024 respondent No.2 invited fresh application under Sadar Sub-Division for issuing new deed writer license. After that the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents requesting to cancel the said notification as to the petitioner, the said notification is contrary to law. Thereafter, again the petitioner submitted a reminder to the respondents to set aside the entire process, but the respondents without paying any heed issued called letters upon the intending candidates. Finding no other alternative, the petitioner through his engaged counsel served legal notice upon the official respondents although the implementing authority issued deed writer license upon the intending candidates. At last, the respondents issued another notification dated 29.10.2024 for issuance of new deed writers license. Being aggrieved by this notification the petitioner herein approached this Hon’ble Court by seeking the following reliefs:
i. Issue RULE, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Certiorari and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued, for calling for the records, lying with the respondents, for rendering substantial and conscionable justice to the petitioner, and for quashing/setting aside the impugned Notification dated 14.08.2024 (Annexure- 2 to the writ petition) for issuance of new Deed Writer License under Sadar Sub-Division, West Tripura, Agartala, thereby cancelling the selection of the respondents no. 8 to 21 in pursuant to the notification dated 14.08.2024, and also for quashing/setting aside the subsequent notification dated 29.10.2024 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition), for issuance of new Deed Writer License for Sadar Sub-Division, West Tripura, Agartala;
ii. Issue RULE, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued, for mandating/directing the respondents to revoke/rescind the impugned Notification dated 14.08.2024 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) for issuance of new Deed Writer License under Sadar Sub-Division, West Tripura, Agartala, thereby cancelling the selection of the respondents no. 8 to 21 in pursuant to the notification dated 14.08.2024, and also for quashing/setting aside the subsequent impugned notification dated 29.10.2024 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition), for issuance of new Deed Writer License for Sadar Sub-Division, West Tripura, Agartala and ;
iii. Call for the records, appertaining to this petition.
iv. After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the RULE absolute, in terms of i. & ii above.
3. Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits before this Court that respondent No.2 issued advertisement for issuance of the deed writer license in terms there is a provision of Tripura Registration (Amendment) Rules 1989 Rule 126 which provides a deed writer can execute 300 nos. of deeds in a particular year. The contention of the petitioner is that there existing no. of deed writer are 49 and the number of deeds, which they are not in a position to execute are 300 nos. deed and in addition thereto fresh deed writer license has been issued by the respondent no.2 without taking exercise of rule 126 of Tripura Registration (Amendment) Rules 1989. Being aggrieved, the petitioner herein submitted representation and reminder but without paying any heed the call letters also issued by the respondents. Subseq
