Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu Document Writers' ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By Its ... on 25 April, 1990
Equivalent citations: (1990)2MLJ134
ORDER Srinivasan, J.
1. The common question to be considered in these petitions is whether the amendment, of Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Copy Writers Licence Rules, 1971, introduced by G.O. Ms. No.603, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department, dated 4.8.1989 is valid.
2. Under Section 52 of the Indian Registration Act as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1966, where any document of a specific class is admitted to registration, a true copy thereof shall, without unnecessary delay, be filed in the appropriate book according, to the order of its admission. Sub-section (3) of the said Section authorises the State Government to specify from time to time by rules the classes of documents in respect of which true copies shall be filed in the appropriate book as aforesaid. Under Sub-section (4), a true copy shall be neatly handwritten, printed, typewritten, lithographed or otherwise prepared in accordance with such rules as may be made in that behalf. By the same Act 21 of 1966, Section 89-A was introduced in the main Act by virtue of which, the State Government was empowered to make rules for all purposes connected with the filing of true copies of documents in the appropriate books under the Act. Under Sub-section (2) of the said Section, such rules could provide for (a) the furnishing of true copies of documents by the person presenting the document for registration, (b) the manner in which true copies of-documents shall be prepared; and (c) the manner of filing of such copies.
3. Exercising the powers conferred by Section 52(4) and Section 89-A (2) of the said Act, the State Government made the Tamil Nadu Copy Writers Licence Rules, 1971, under G.O. Ms. No. 955, Revenue, dated 2nd April, 1971. The rules were made inapplicable to printed or typewritten copies. By G.O. Ms. No. 5093, Revenue, dated 20th September, 1973, lithographed copies were also excluded from the purview of the Rules. By G.O. Ms. No. 603 dated 4.8.1989, which is impugned in these petitions, the Rules are made applicable to typewritten copies, thus requiring the persons who type the copies of the documents for the purpose of filing in appropriate book as per Section 52 of the Act, to obtain licences as per the Rules. Under Rule 6, as it stood before amendment, no person was eligible for a licence unless he had passed the tests prescribed in Rule 8. Rule 8 enjoins the Inspector General to conduct, as often as he considers necessary, a test of two hours duration for licencing individuals as copy writers at the Headquarters of every Registration District, after calling for applications for admission to the least at least a month in advance by means of notice published in the notice board of all the registration office and such test shall be for good hand-writing, accuracy in transcription and the mode of preparation of copies. After amendment by the present G.O. Rule 6 reads as follows:
No person shall be eligible for a licence unless he has passed the test prescribed in Rule 8 or passed the typewriting higher grade examination, both in English and Tamil.
Though according to the language of Rule -6 the eligibility is alternative, inasmuch as Rule 8 provides for a test only with reference to copy-writers who prepare the copies in handwriting, the qualification of passing typewriting higher grade examination both in English and Tamil is necessary in case of all typists who want to obtain licences as copywriters.
4. The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the prescription of the said qualification under Rule 6. According to them, the rule prescribes unethical qualification and this violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also their case that there is a violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Yet another contention which is half-heartedly raised is that the rules are beyond the scope of the Indian Registration Act and thus ab initio void.
5. The petitioner in W.P. 14425 of 1989 is Tamil Nadu Document Writers Association represented by its Secretary. It claims to be a registered association having membership of about 5000 persons all over the State of Tamil Nadu, comprising of both document writers and copy writers. According to the Association, its members, have generally passed VIII Standard, S.S.L.C., X Standard and Plus 2 and they have been carrying on the profession of copy writers and document writers having a practical knowledge of typing and hiring or purchasing typewriters. It is stated that the members of the Association are aged between 18 and 70 years, carrying on the profession from one year to 35 years. It is stated that some of them have passed lower examinations in typewriting in Tamil or English. According to the Association, the effect of the G.O. will be to render more than 25,000 persons unemployed. It is stated that the job of copywriting or document writing is only seasonal as the Tamil months Adi and Margazhi are considered to be inauspicious and no transaction would take place during those months. According to the petitioner, the copywriters- typists may get a maximum of Rs.250/- to Rs.300/- per mensem in the months other than Adi and Marghazhi. It is the case of the association, that prescribing a qualification of passing higher examination in both English and Tamil typewriting is wholly arbitrary and there is absolutely no necessity therefor, as by practical experience, any person can type a document neatly without having passed any examination.
6. In W.P. No. 14427 of 1989, two persons who were functioning as copywriters in the office of the Sub-Registrar Namakkal, have challenged the G.O. on the same grounds. They claim to have passed S.S.L.C. and Tamil typewriting lower grade examination. According to them, they have been carrying on the job from 1981.
7. The petitioner in W.P. 14903 of 1989 passed S.S.L.C. examination in October 1985 and Tamil Typewriting examination in higher grade in November 1988. He had also passed English typewriting lower examination in November 1987. He claims to have been typing documents even from 1984 as according to him, his father is a licenced document writer and used to give documents for typing.
8. The petitioner in W.P. 16077 of 1989 studied in the X Standard, for some time and had to discontinue for want of funds and was forced to the necessity to augment the income of the family. He claims to have had training under an experienced typist, who is running an institute called Kalaimagal Typewriting Institute, Omalur. He has not passed any examination in typing, but he claims to have been doing the work for the past five years.
9. A counter affidavit has been filed in W.P. No. 14427 of 1989 and it is treated as counter in all the writ petitions. In paragraph 4 it is stated as follows:
Copies of documents filed in the Registration Offices are permanent records and have to be prepared with greater care and diligence. It is also necessary that typing work should be done with great care and also very quickly so that the Registering public are benefited. The copy of the document has to be presented along with the documents presented for registration to ensure better quality and to have uniformity. That is why standards have been prescribed for type-writing. Practical experience is not sufficient for the proper execution as mentioned above.
It is stated that the amendment to Rule 6.was brought with a view to streamline the work regarding the preparation of typed copies of documents so as to cater to the needs of the registering public in a better way. It is also stated that there is no denial of right in carrying on profession and the qualifications prescribed are only regulatory in character and they are very reasonable and necessary in the interest of the public. According to the counter affidavit, there is no violation of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India and the new G.O. is perfectly valid and it is intended to secure accuracy, speed and efficiency in typing documents and the same serves the public interest. It is stated that the entire system is to stream line the particular profession in the public interest and it is open to the petitioners to qualify themselves for getting the licence.
10. There is no difficulty in rejecting the contention that the G.O. travels beyond the scope of the parent Act or that it is ultra vires the rule making power conferred on the Government. I have already referred to the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1966. Sub-section (4) of Section 52 is wide enough to empower the Government to frame rules for the purpose of preparation of copies, whether they are handwritten, printed, typewritten or lithographed. The language of Sub-section 2(b) of Section 89-A of the Act is equally wide conferring a similar power on the Government to frame rules. The Government is, therefore, - entitled to prescribe licences for persons who want to have the copies prepared by them to be filed in the appropriate book in the office of Registration. While doing so, they can prescribe such qualifications as are necessary, which will make a person eligible to obtain a licence Prescribing a licence or qualification for eligibility to obtain such a licence will not by itself amount to unreasonable restriction as it does not prevent anybody from carrying on the business or profession. It will only be a case of regulation of the trade or business.
11. However, the question will be whether the prescription of a particular qualification is reasonable and necessary or arbitrary. The impugned G.G. prescribes that any aspirant for a copywriter's licence should pass the typewriting higher grade examination, both in English and Tamil. In this State, documents are executed in Tamil or English generally. It is common knowledge that in Tamil documents some English words are being used not because the parties are not aware of the exact Tamil equivalent therefor but more because they are more familiar with such English expressions. In fact, even in the plaints or other documents filed in Court, when they are mainly in Tamil, it is found that several English expressions are used freely therein. Sometimes, the English words are written in Tamil script also. But, there will not be any instance where a document is partly in English and partly in Tamil. A person having a Tamil typewriting machine well not find any necessity to have an English typewriting machine in order to render satisfactory services to the customers. Similarly, a person having an English typewriting machine will find any necessity to have a Tamil typewriting machine. With the meagre income that they earn, the copywriters cannot afford to have more than one typewriting machine and it may be in any one of the languages. ''
12. Viewed in that background, the prescription of a pass in the higher grade examinations in both the languages is certainly unreasonable. It is irrational and has no nexus with the object of the rules. Mostly, the documents will be only in one language. There is absolutely no justification for expecting a man to be qualified by passing in both higher grade examinations. To insist upon such a qualification will tantamount to unreasonable restriction. It would be preventing a man from carrying on profession of copying documents prepared in one language even though he is fully qualified to do so. To that extent, the amendment of the Rule is entirely unreasonable and absolutely arbitrary. Hence, it deserves to be struck down to that limited extent.
13. Hence, I declare that Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Copy Writers Licence Rules, 1971, as amended by G.O. Ms. No.603 dated 4.8.1989 is unconstitutional to the extent to which it prescribes a pass in the typewriting higher grade examinations both in English and Tamil. If any person has passed higher grade examination in any one of the two languages, he is eligible to apply for licence.
14. In so far as the petitioner in W.P. 14903 of 1989 is concerned, he claims to have passed typewriting higher grade examination in Tamil and Lower grade in English. He has also produced the xerox copies of the certificates issued by the Director of Technical Examination and Chairman Board of Examinations, Tamil Nadu. His application for issue of licence has been returned by the concerned authority on the ground that he is not qualified. The return is improper in view of my above decision. The said petitioner shall represent the application for licence and the same shall be considered on merits by the concerned authority on the footing that he is eligible to apply for licence.
15. With reference to the petitioner in W.P. No. 14427 of 1989 and the petitioner in W.P. 16077 of 1989, neither of them has passed higher grade typewriting examination in any of the languages. Hence, they cannot apply for licences unless they get qualified.
16. With reference to W.P. No. 14426 of 1989, such of the members of Tamil Nadu Document Writers Association who have passed higher grade examinations in either of the languages are entitled to apply for licence and their applications shall be considered by the authorities. Other members are not entitled to make such an application, unless they get qualified.
17. In the result, there will be a declaration in these writ petitions that Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Copy Writers Licence Rules, 1971, as amended by G.O. Ms. No. 603 dated 4.8.1989 is unconstitutional to the extent to which it prescribes a pass in the typewriting higher grade examinations both in English and Tamil and that if any person has passed higher grade examination in any one of the two languages, he is eligible to apply for licence. W.P. Nos. 14426, 14427 and 16077 of 1989 are dismissed in other respects. In W.P. No. 14903 of 1989, the second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's application for licence as soon as it is represented by him. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.