- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the par ties and perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition with a prayer to quash the order dated June 1,2006, passed by the District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition) whereby the deed-writer licence of the petitioner has been sus pended till further orders. The main contention of the pe titioner is that no opportunity of hear ing has been given by the District Mag istrate before suspending the licence in question. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in the present case, the impugned order is hit by the provisions of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 16 of the U. P. Document Writers Licensing Rules (1977), which specifically provides that no order un der sub-Rule (1) shall be passed, un less the document writer has been given an opportunity of being heard in his defence, therefore, the order im pugned is violative of principle of natural justice. In support of his con tention, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of. "vijay Kumar Vs. District Registrar/additional Collector, Pilibhit and another" [1999, All. L. J. , page 2674]. Rule 16 of the U. P. Document Writers Licensing Rules, 1977, as amended by Second Amendment Rules, 1981, reads as under : "16. Cancellation of licence- (1) The licensing Authority may at any time suspend or cancel the li cence of a document writer on any of the following grounds, namely- (a) breach of any of these rules or conditions of licence; (b) failure to attend the registra tion office for a continuous period exceeding one month without permission of the Li censing Authority or the Reg istering Officer; (c) for being guilty of participation in any illegal transaction or un fair dealings with public serv ants in the registration Depart ment; (d) for being found negligent or in efficient in his work or dishon est in his dealings with the pub lic; (e) for being convicted by a court for an offence involving moral turpitude; and (f) for any other sufficient cause to be recorded in writing. (2) No order under sub-rule (1) shall be passed, unless the document writer has been given an opportunity of being heard in his defence.
(3.) ON behalf of the State, q coun ter affidavit duly sworn in by Sri Mohan Singh, Tehsildar, Kotdwar, has been filed. In paragraph no. 3 of the counter affidavit, it was stated that the licence of the petitioner was can celled on the ground that the peti tioner was found to be indulged in preparing forged document (will) of one Sri Ram Singh, S/o Diwan Singh and Smt. Khemwati Devi wife of Prem Singh in respect of land situated at village Devram Pur having Khata no. 24 of area 0. 690 hectare land. It was further stated that the order was passed on the basis of inquiry con ducted by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kotdwar dated 27- 04-2006 and the or der of suspension of license has been passed in accordance with the Rules and procedure in the interest of pub lic at large. It was also contended that the petitioner had already filed an appeal against the impugned order before Commissioner, Garhwal Region. The petitioner has filed rejoin der affidavit and specifically denied the averment made in the counter af fidavit and it was stated that no op portunity of hearing was ever given to the petitioner and he had not preferred any revision or appeal before the Com missioner Garhwal Region.;