Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amrik Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 July, 2012
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
CWP No.276 of 2012 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1. CWP No.276 of 2012 (O&M)
Amrik Singh
....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
2. CWP No.626 of 2012 (O&M) Harish Kumar ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents Decided on : 24-07-2012 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr.Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. P.S.Thiara, Addl. AG, Punjab MAHESH GROVER, J This order will dispose of two writ petitions bearing CWP nos. 276 of 2012 and 626 of 2012 as they involve common question of facts and law.
The petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions are deed writers whose licences have been cancelled vide orders dated 6.4.2010 (in CWP no. 276 of 2012) and 31.3.2010( in CWP no.626 of 2012). The reason for cancellation is the invocation of Rule 14 by the respondents on the premise that while preparing deed/document the petitioners had not scribed the same on the stamp papers of proper value as per the document classified CWP No.276 of 2012 (O&M) 2 and according to its substance.
Violation of Rule 14 and the penalty on account thereof invites cancellation. For the purposes of reference relevant Rules i.e. Rule 14 (g) and 15 are extracted herebelow:-
Rule 14 Conditions of licenses - A document writer :
(a) xxxxx
(b) xxxxx
(c ) xxxxx
(d) xxxxx
(e) xxxxx
(f) xxxxx
(g) shall be responsible to see that the document is written
on a stamp of paper value and that the document is classified according to its substance.
Rule 15 - Penalty for breach of conditions of license -
The licensing authority or the Inspector General or Registrar may after giving the document writer an opportunity of being head, suspends his license or cancel the same. If he is found to have committed breach of any of conditions of his license."
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act the Sub Registrar/Collector is empowered to evaluate whether the document has properly been stamped or not and the petitioners cannot be burdened with any liability on this count. He thus contends that the cancellation is bad in the eyes of law. Reliance has been placed on decision of Division Bench in case titled as Suresh Kumar vs. CWP No.276 of 2012 (O&M) 3 State of Punjab and another reported as (2008-3) Vol.CLI PLR 189.
On the other hand, respondent has placed reliance on the violation of Rule 14 and has justified the penalty of cancellation of licences.
On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the matter is no longer res integra as these rules have been interpreted in context of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act and it has been observed that only reasonable interpretation of Rule 14(g) of the Rules is that a document writer is expected to write a document on a stamp paper of proper value and this would mean that if a particular price is disclosed then the deed writer is expected to use the stamp paper, which is required according to the disclosed value. For the purposes of reference, para 5 of the judgment rendered in Suresh Kumar's case (supra) which is relevant is extracted herebelow:-
"According to the conditions prescribed by Rule 14 a document writer is under various obligations, which include maintenance of a register and also further obligation of signing every document written by him by affixing his seal. According to Rule 14 (f), a document writer must not write or cause to be written by any other document writer any document which he knows to be fraudulent in nature and unnecessary. According to Rule 14(g), he is responsible to ensure that the document is written on a stamp paper of proper value and the document is classified according to its substance. A document writer by virtue of Rule 14(g) of the Rules is CWP No.276 of 2012 (O&M) 4 expected to calculate the stamp duty and registration fee on the apparent sale price of the property shown by the parties. The rule further imposes a responsibility on a document writer to classify the document according to its substance, which would mean that he would give the document a name such as mortgage deed, partition deed, sale deed, will etc. etc. It is not possible to interpret the rule to mean that the document writer is expected to insist on the parties to disclose market value of the property either as per collector's rate or the prevailing market rates. The respondents in all the three impugned orders have interpreted the rule to mean that a document writer is expected to write the document on a stamp paper of proper value, which is the prevailing market value. Such an interpretation would result into conferring power on a document writer which are to be exercised by the Collector under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The only reasonable interpretation of Rule 14(g) of the Rules is that a document writer is expected to write the document on a stamp paper of proper value. In other words, if a particular price has been disclosed then the document writer would expect the parties to use the stamp paper, which is required according to the disclosed value. If a document writer is to write a Power of Attorney then the stamp paper of proper value has to be used, so on and so forth. Therefore, the interpretation of Rule 14(g) of the Rules adopted by the respondents is erroneous and CWP No.276 of 2012 (O&M) 5 unwarranted. It suffers from grave mistake of law."
Consequently, in view of the settled proposition of law, the writ petitions are allowed and impugned orders of cancellation of the licences of the petitioners are hereby set aside.
July 24, 2012 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge