BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19/11/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.9481 of 2010 Muthukumara Pandian ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chief Secretary to Government, Tamil Nadu Government, Secretariat Government Estate, Chennai. 2.The Principal Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration (M2) Department, Tamil Nadu Government, Secretariat Government Estate, Chennai. ... Respondents Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration, amending Sub Rule 2 of the Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Document Writer's Licence Rule of 1982 effected in the G.O.Ms.No.49 dated 15.04.2010 as null and void and ultra vires. !For Petitioner ... Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian ^For Respondents ... Mr.R.Janakiramulu,Spl.G.P. :ORDER
The petitioner has come forward to challenge the statutory amendment to
the Tamil Nadu Document Writers’ Licence Rule, 1982 made vide government order
in G.O.Ms.No.49 Commercial Taxes and Registration (M2) Department, dated
15.04.2010. At present, the petitioner is having licence of the Document Typist
and assisting the existing document writers.
2.The grievance of the petitioner was that by amendment made to Rule 7 of
the Tamil Nadu Document Writer’s Licence Rule, 1982, a fresh qualification has
been introduced by the Government. The amendment has found in paragraph 5 of
the impugned G.O. reads as follows:
“(5) in rule 7, –
(i)in sub-rule (1), for the expression “eighteen years of age”, the expression
“twenty five years of age” shall be substituted;
(ii)in sub-rule (2),-
(a)for the expression “Document Writers’ Licensing Test unless he has
passed the (S.S.L.C., Examination) or its equivalent examination”, the following
shall be substituted, namely:-
“Document Writer’s Licence Test unless he possesses the following
qualifications, namely:-
(1)A degree from a recognized University;
(2)Typewriting either by lower or higher grade both in Tamil and English:
Provided that a diploma in Computer Application shall be an additional
qualification:
Provided further that the above qualification shall not apply to the
licensees who have already been granted licence before the date of this
Notification, and in respect of renewal of licences by such licensees.”;
(b)for the proviso, the following proviso shall be substituted, namely:-
“Provided also that the persons who desire to apply for a State Licence
should possess an adequate knowledge of the official language of the State
namely, Tamil”;”
3.The further grievance of the petitioner was that he is having S.S.L.C.
and also having sufficient experience and by the introduction of the Degree
qualification, the petitioner will be denied the right to get Document Writers’
Licence. Therefore, the Rule 7 is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21
of the Constitution, though wrongly typed as Article 21(a). It is also the
claim of the petitioner that even for the entry service to the Government
department under Group IV, the prescribed qualification is only S.S.L.C.
Therefore, the government cannot prescribe a higher qualification for the
Document Writers. The contention of the petitioner cannot be countenanced for
very many reasons. The power to prescribe conditions for grant of licence is
provided under the State amendment to the Registration Act 1908.
4.Section 89-B of the amendment made by the State reads as follows:
“89-B.Power to make rules regulating the writing of documents.-The State
Government may make rules providing for the grant of licences to document
writers, the terms and conditions subject to which and the authority by whom
such licences shall be granted, the circumstances under which such licences may
be revoked, and generally for all purposes connected with the writing of
documents to be presented for registration.-Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1981, S.2.”
5.It is pursuant to the said power, the government had made the Document
Writers’ Licence Rule, 1982 and even in framing the Rules, the government had
taken care to protect the existing Document Licence Holders. Therefore, the
Rule will apply only to persons, who are applying for fresh licence. While the
power of the government is drawn from Section 89-B of the Act, which included
prescription of terms and conditions for holding the licence, the State
government is empowered to prescribe an educational qualification. The
petitioner merely because having experience or he is already assisted the
Document Writers cannot challenge the rule on any ground more so in terms of
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
6.The very Rule itself indicates that it is only to grant licence to write
document for the purpose of registration. Therefore, unless the petitioner
satisfy the licence conditions, the petitioner cannot challenge the very power
of the government in framing the rule or the prescription of appropriate
educational qualification. It is needless to state that many cases are being
filed in Courts due clumsy language used in registered documents leading to many
litigations in Courts. Therefore, it is a policy of the government to prescribe
a minimum educational qualification to licence a person in writing documents.
It is not as if the petitioner cannot get a degree so as to qualify himself to
get such a licence. Merely, because the petitioner possesses S.S.L.C. that does
not mean the licence condition should be diluted to make the requirement of the
petitioner.
7.Under these circumstances, there is no case made out and certainly there
is no violation of Articles 14 and 21 in framing the Rules. This Court is not
inclined to entertain the Writ petition. Hence, the Writ petition stands
dismissed. No costs.
nbj
To
1.The Chief Secretary to Government,
Tamil Nadu Government,
Secretariat Government Estate, Chennai.
2.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Commercial Taxes and Registration (M2) Department,
Tamil Nadu Government,
Secretariat Government Estate, Chennai.