Ajit Kumar Srivastava v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court LPA No.552 of 2013 (3) dt.09-10-2013 2 exchange for consideration to earn his livelihood. He is not concerned with the details of the transaction and cannot be held answerable if the parties to the transaction do not furnish him necessary information leading inter alia to loss of revenue by the State. The liability for it has to vest with the parties to the transaction alone. Counsel for the State emphasized Appellant as a Deed writer resided in the same village and would be presumed to be fully aware of the facts regarding a transaction. The authorities have committed no error in proceeding on the assumption that it was done by him knowingly and the onus lies on him to demonstrate that he was not at fault. At the appellate stage, the parties to the transaction have also deposited the short revenue. The impugned order therefore calls for no interference. The petitioner is stated to be a professional Deed writer duly licensed under the Bihar Deed Writers Licensing Rules 1996 framed under Section 69 (1)(bb) of the Registration Act. Rule 9(e) deals with regard to the conditions of his licence that he shall write or cause to be written documents legibly and in accordance with the instructions that may be issued from time to time by the licensing authority or the Inspector-General of Registration. Under Sub-clause (f) he shall instruct the parties or the duly authorized agents or persons having powers of attorney to Patna High Court LPA No.552 of 2013 (3) dt.09-10-2013 3 pay the fees in person direct to the Registering officers and not through any other agency; Sub-clause (g) provides that he shall write or cause to be written documents carefully, properly and in clean and unambiguous terms. Rule 13 provides for Cancellation and suspension of licence inter alia for violation of any of the Rules or the conditions of the licence, failure to attend the registration office for a period exceeding six months without a reasonable cause or without leave. Such orders cannot be passed without an opportunity to show cause. Appeal lies before the Inspector-General of Registration under Rule-14. The Rules do not provide for personal liability of the deed writer with regard to errors/omissions in the document sought to be prepared and presented for registration. The significance of Rule 9 (f) “that he shall instruct the parties to pay the fees” satisfies us that his primary duty only is to make the parties aware of their statutory responsibilities. The Rules do not provide for a Deed writer to cross-examine and make inquiries from the parties to the transaction, and prepare the deed only after he is satisfied with regard to the legality/validity and correctness of the information furnished to him. That, however would not take within its ambit a document apparently illegal on the face of it as a defence that he was not answerable. Such a document for example would include an agreement to commit a deliberate fraud and the like. There is Patna High Court LPA No.552 of 2013 (3) dt.09-10-2013 4 no allegation for violation of any condition of the licence. The Appellant prepared Deed No. 8066 and 8067 dated 15.06.2009 on behalf of Ravindra Nath Srivastava etc. as one party to the transaction and Jagjitan Sah as another. The property to the transaction was inspected by the Inspector, Saran Division who found that the house was in dilapidated condition and certain trees were also found on the land. The construction and the trees found no reference in the document of transaction leading to the opinion that it was done intentionally to escape revenue liabilities. The Appellant was asked to show cause on

23.11.2010. Significantly the show cause notice does not allege that the Appellant was a party in collusion and knowingly did so or that he was required to make inquiries before he prepared the document of transaction. The Appellant submitted his reply on

30.11.2010 inter alia taking the stand that he prepares the title deeds based on the information that may be given to him by the parties. In lieu thereof he receives his fees as provided under the Licence Rules. If the parties to the transaction did not make full disclosure to him with regard to the property in question leading to any loss of revenue the liability rests with the parties to the transaction and not with him. On 04.05.2011, the District Registration Officer, Gopalganj wrote to the Additional Collector opining in favour of Patna High Court LPA No.552 of 2013 (3) dt.09-10-2013 5 the Appellant that it is possible the parties did not furnish him full information. Therefore he proposed suspension or a warning only. Instead of taking final decision on the same for no reasons explained at all the District Magistrate issued a fresh show cause notice on 15.06.2011. We are of the opinion that if a show cause notice was issued on 23.11.2010, duly replied and considered, the District Magistrate committed gross error in issuing a fresh show cause notice without recording a finding for its unacceptability. The Appellant submitted his reply afresh reiterating what he had said on the previous occasion. The order for cancellation was issued by the District Magistrate on 24.10.2011. We have gone through the order of the District Magistrate. We are of the considered opinion that it displays a preconceived mind and a determination to punish. The cause shown by the Appellant has not even been considered much less even dealt with let alone even a brief reason given why it was not acceptable. It is almost as if the District Magistrate was determined to cancel the licence and was fulfilling the formality for a show cause notice. We are of the opinion that the District Magistrate has acted in abuse of his statutory powers disregarding the caution that was required while dealing with the fundamental rights of a citizen under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. So long as the grounds for suspension/cancellation provided in the Patna High Court LPA No.552 of 2013 (3) dt.09-10-2013 6 Deed Licencing Rules were not met, this fundamental right of the Appellant cannot be interfered with arbitrarily. The Appellate order dated 27.02.2012 in our opinion compounds the arbitrariness of the District Magistrate. It notices that the parties to the transaction have subsequently deposited the short revenue. Neither the District Magistrate nor the Appellant Authority has even opined let alone a rudimentary suggestion of any complicity on part of the Appellant in collusion with the parties to the transaction. The order for cancellation dated 24.10.2011, the Appellate Order dated 27.02.2012 and the order under Appeal dated 26.02.2013 are set aside. The licence of the Appellant as a Deed Writer stands restored. The Appeal is allowed. (Navin Sinha, J) Md. Ibrarul/- (Vikash Jain, J)