P.K. Vaigundamani vs The Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department

Mr. C.S. Karnan, J.—The Short facts of the case are as follows :

The petitioner submits that he is a document writer for more than 25 years in Tenkasi Registration District. He obtained license as Document Writer in the year 1984 itself in license No.B.2237/TRS/1984 from the second respondent, licensing authority, initially as a District Document Writer and subsequently for the whole State of Tamil Nadu. He is wholly depending upon the income from the above profession for all these years and further he has earned good reputation in that locality in his profession. The petitioner further submits that during the year 1993 his wife Mrs.Gnanasundari applied for license for vending stamps pursuant to calling for application by the third respondent herein dated 06.09.1993. He further submits that there was no prohibition whatsoever to become a stamp vendor even if the spouse is employed. He further submits that his wife while applying for granting of license for stamp vendor specifically mentioned about his profession as Document Writer and his wife was granted license of Stamp Vendor on 31.01.1994 by the third respondent-District Registrar.

The petitioner further submits that while so some one who is enemically disposed of towards his appearance had given a complaint to the respondents herein regarding the fact of his wife being the stamp vendor. The second respondent-Inspector General of Registration, by his proceedings dated 20.03.1996 by referring to the report of the vigilance cell temporarily cancelled his license on the ground that he was disqualified to be a Document Writer under Rule 5(j) of the Tamil Nadu Document Writer License Rules, 1982 hereinafter called the said Rules. Subsequently, the second respondent herein issued a show cause notice dated 20.03.1996 calling upon him to explain why his license should not be cancelled for alleged violation of Rule 5(j) of the said Rules. The petitioner sent an explanation through the third respondent herein. The petitioner further submits that the second respondent without properly adverting to the relevant Rules and on a total misconception of law and facts passed an order dated 07.06.1996 cancelling his license on the premise that his wife is a stamp vendor which attracts the disqualification under Rule 5(j) of the said Rules. As against the above order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent, viz., the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, on 05.08.1996. The first respondent herein also committed the same mistake and by G.O.(t)No.536, Commercial Taxes and Endowment Department, dated 24.12.1996 rejected his appeal and confirmed the order passed by the second respondent herein. The petitioner further submits that as per the said Rules, the disqualification comes into operation only if his spouse was a Stamp Vendor at the time of granting of license to him as Document Writer. Whereas, in his case, he was granted with the Document Writer''s license long back. Therefore, the above Rule does not apply to his case.

The petitioner further submits that while so, when he approached the second respondent herein in this regard, he was wrongly advised that if his wife surrendered her license of Stamp Vendor, he will be granted license for Document Writer. Therefore, without challenging the impugned orders, on 28.10.1996, he and his wife sent separate representation to the second respondent, whereby his wife applied for cancellation of her license and he applied for license in view of his wife''s consent for cancellation of her license. The petitioner further submits that the second respondent herein also by his letter No.41100/13(4-2 dated 25.01.1997) directed the third respondent to take steps to cancel the license issued to his wife Mrs. Gnanasundari as the Stamp Vendor and at the same time asked him to submit necessary application for granting of license for Document Writer through the third respondent herein. The petitioner further submits that his wife also sent necessary petition on 26.02.1997 to the third respondent herein to cancel her license of stamp vendor as per the advice of the second respondent herein. The petitioner further submits that the third respondent by his proceedings dated 04.03.1997 cancelled the license of his wife and submitted an application to the second respondent herein on 02.07.1997 for granting of license of Document Writer since his wife''s license had already been cancelled. The petitioner further submits that the second respondent herein on receipt of his application recommended to the first respondent herein to consider his request favourably. However, the first respondent herein had not considered the said request. The petitioner further submits that he was advised to send a representation to the first respondent herein in the form of Review Application on 13.09.1999 due to subsequent circumstances and in view of the fact that the earlier orders were passed by the said authorities on a total misconception of relevant Rules. To his shock and surprise, he received the letter from the third respondent herein dated 10.08.2000 enclosing the impugned letters issued by the second and first respondents herein dated 29.06.2000 and 05.06.2000 respectively rejecting his request for reconsideration.

The petitioner further submits that aggrieved against the same, he had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.15763 of 2000, challenging the said order. The said writ petition was admitted by this Court and after hearing both sides, by order dated 19.09.2005, this Court was pleased to dispose of the writ petition, as follows:-

"As regards the second relief, the typed set of papers shows the copy of the order passed on 04.03.1997 cancelling the stamp vendor''s license given to the petitioner''s wife. The petitioner has already applied for fresh license on 31.01.1997. The second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner''s application, if it is otherwise in order and if the petitioner does not suffer from any disqualification. Provided under the Rules, and pass orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

The petitioner further submits that he made a representation to the second respondent and requested to consider the said issue. However, without application of mind and without considering the directions given by this Court, the second respondent herein, by order dated 18.10.2005 rejected his request observing that his license was cancelled only after receiving proper reply from him and relevant Rule 5(j) was also considered and it was also stated that if he so desired, he can prefer a revision before the first respondent for getting fresh license. Hence, on 28.11.2005, the petitioner filed a revision against the aforesaid order before the first respondent. The first respondent without application of mind and without considering the facts of the case and order of this Court, by order dated 22.05.2006, dismissed his revision by stating that his appeal has already been dismissed. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

The respondents have filed a counter statement and resisted the above writ petition. The respondents submits that since the petitioner''s wife Mrs. Gnanasundari being stamp vendor, the petitioner was considered as disqualified to be a Document Writer under Rule 5(j) of Document Writer''s Rules 1982 and hence, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 20.03.1996 and the petitioner made his explanation to the said show cause notice. Since petitioner''s explanation was not satisfactory, the license was cancelled by the Inspector General of Registration in his proceedings No.41100/I3/1994, dated 07.06.1996. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Government against the cancellation orders and the Government also confirmed the cancellation orders passed by the second respondent herein by G.O.No.536/CT7 RE, dated 24.12.1996. The respondents further submits that the Document Writer''s license was issued to the petitioner as early in the year 1984 and the stamp vendor''s licence was issued to the petitioner''s wife in the year 1994. The respondents further submit that the second respondent informed to the petitioner vide letter No.41100/I3/94-2, dated 25.01.1997, that petitioner''s wife may surrender her stamp vendor''s license and petitioner may put-forth his grievance before the third respondent herein for getting fresh Document Writer''s license. Accordingly on 26.02.1997, the petitioner''s wife applied for cancellation of her stamp vendor''s license. The third respondent herein by his proceedings dated 04.03.1997 cancelled the stamp vendor''s license of Mrs. Gnanasundari. On 02.07.1997, the petitioner herein submitted the application for grant of Document Writer''s license and the third respondent herein also submitted the said application to the first respondent herein. In view of the bar contained under the Rule 5(j) of the Tamilnadu Document Writer''s Rule 1982, the first respondent by his letter No.28403/W/97-10, dated 28.07.1999 issued orders that they regretted their inability to comply with the request of the petitioner herein and hence, the fresh document writer license was not granted to the petitioner herein.

The respondents further submit that on 13.09.1999, the petitioner herein submitted his representation in the form of review petition. The second respondent herein by his proceedings No.54206/I3/99, dated 29.06.2000 rejected the petition in view of Government orders already issued in No.24734/W/99-S, dated 26.05.2000. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.15763 of 2000 before this Court. By order dated 20.08.2005, this Court was pleased to dispose of the writ petition as follows:-

"As regards the second relief, the typed-set of papers shows the copy of the order passed on 04.03.1997 cancelling the stamp vendor''s license given to the petitioner''s wife. The petitioner has already applied for fresh license on 31.03.1997. The second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner''s application, if it is otherwise in order and if the petitioner does not suffer from any disqualification provided under the Rules and pass orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs."

As per the order of this Court, the petitioner herein submitted his application to the second respondent herein for re-consideration and this request was also rejected by the second respondent herein by his proceedings No.K.Dis 42088/I3/04, dated 18.10.2005 pointing out that as per Rule 5(j) of the Tamilnadu Document Writer''s Rules 1982, the license could not be granted as the previous cancellation order of his license had not been quashed by the competent authority. As per the Government directions, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Government on 21.11.2005 and the first respondent also in his order No.16035/M2/04-10, dated 22.05.2006 passed an order rejecting the revision petition on the ground that his request has already been rejected as per Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Document Writer Rules. The respondents further submit that the Government had received more complaint against the Document Writers and his spouse while selling the stamps. Hence, in order to regulate the stamp vending Rule 5(j) was incorporated in the Document Writer Rules 1982 and the same was enacted purely on public interest. A bare reference to the impugned Rule would reveal that Government having noticed large scale of irregularities, fraud and malpractices in the trade and business of stamp vending, imposed such a restriction in public interest. Hence, the respondents entreat the Court to dismiss the above writ petition.

The highly competent senior counsel Mr. ARL. Sundaresan appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had obtained license as Document Writer in the year 1984 from the respondents, since the petitioner had possessed all necessary qualifications. The petitioner had served as Document Writer for about 25 years, without any adverse comments from the respondents as well as the general public. He further submits that his wife was granted license for stamp vendor on 31.01.1994 by the third respondent herein. Under the circumstances, a third party had lodged a false complaint before the third respondent herein. On the strength of false complaint, the petitioner was disqualified to be a Document Writer. Further, the second respondent had issued a show cause notice, for which, the petitioner had sent a detailed explanation. However, the second respondent had erroneously disqualified the petitioner. The aggrieved petitioner preferred an administrative appeal before the first respondent, who dismissed the said appeal on the ground that the petitioner''s spouse should not function as a stamp vendor.

The highly competent senior counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that on the advice of the second respondent, the petitioner''s wife surrendered her license of stamp vendor through a separate representation. The same was considered by the third respondent, who however cancelled the license issued to the petitioner''s wife. However, the petitioner''s representation for restoring his license was not considered and his application was rejected and the impugned order was passed, which is against the Rules. Hence, the highly competent senior counsel entreats the Court to allow the above writ petition.

The highly competent Additional Government Pleader Mr. M.S. Ramesh appearing for the respondents submits that the Document Writer license had been granted to the petitioner in the year 1984 and his wife was granted stamp vendor license on 31.01.1994. As per Rule 5(j) of the Document Writer Rules, 1982, the petitioner''s wife/spouse should not be granted stamp vendor''s license. Hence, a show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner and after getting explanation from the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed as per Document Writer Rules, 1982. Therefore, the first respondent''s impugned order is fit to be operated. The highly competent counsel further submits that the petitioner had sent a representation for reconsidering his wife''s representation for renewal of stamp vendors license and the same was rejected as per Rules. Hence, the highly competent Additional Government Pleader entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition.

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the highly competent counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the respondents, this Court is of the view that the stamp vendor license, which had been issued to the petitioner''s wife on 31.01.1994 was cancelled subsequently. This license had been obtained after issuance of license to the petitioner in the year 1984. Merely because, the license had been granted in favour of the petitioner''s wife, the petitioner''s license as Document Writer cannot be cancelled. Further, there is no serious allegations against the petitioner. Hence, the above writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the first respondent''s letter No.16035/M2/2004-10, dated 22.05.2006 confirming the order of the second respondent in MM.No.42088/I3/04, dated 18.10.2005 is quashed. Consequently, this Court directs the respondents to restore the petitioner''s license No.B.2237/TRS/1984 , within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There is no order as to costs.