K.G.MAGRULKAR Vs. DISTRICT REGISTRAR & LICENSING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE circumstances in which this application under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed are that in March 1959 the petitioner obtained a licence, under the Madhya Pradesh Document writers Licensing Rules, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), for practising in Chhindwara district as a Document -writer. The licence was granted in the first instance for a period of one year. But thereafter on the expiry of one year's period the petitioner was granted a permanent licence under rule 7 of the Rules. In 1962, one Kunjilal reported to the District Registrar and Licensing Authority, Chhindwara, that in his application for the grant of licence the petitioner had deliberately suppressed the fact that he had been convicted some eighteen years back for offences under sections 352 and 4471. P. C. and under section 12 of the Cattle Trespass Act. Pursuant to this report, the licensing Authority stated an enquiry and at the end of it cancelled the petitioner's licence holding that the petitioner had not disclosed in his application for the grant of licence the material fact that he had been convicted for the offences mentioned above.

(2.) THE petitioner then made a representation to the Inspector General of Registration, Madhya Pradesh, against the order of cancellation passed by the Licensing Authority. The Inspector General of Registration heard the petitioner and then, in the exercise of his powers under rule 17 of the Rules, made an order that the period from the date of the order of cancellation passed by the Licensing Authority upto the date of the order passed by him under rule 17 should be treated as "suspension period of the applicant" and that in case the petitioner applies again to the Licensing Authority giving full and correct particulars, as required by the rules, in his application for grant of a licence, the said Authority should "re -examine his case for fresh appointment keeping in view the principles of equity, justice and good conscience". The petitioner then made a fresh application for the grant of a licence mentioning inter alia the fact that he had been convicted several years back under sections 352 and 417 I. P. C. and section 12 of the Cattle Trespass Act. The Licensing Authority, accepting the petitioner's contention, came to the conclusion that the offences for which he was convicted did not involve moral turpitude or depravity of character and the grant of a licence could not be denied to him because of those convictions. The Authority, however, formed the opinion that a report given by the Superintendent of Police, Chhindwara, about the petitioner's character showed that he was not a fit person for the grant of a hcence. The Licensing Authority observed that it was not desirable in public interest to disclose the police report; that the said report was read over to the petitioner and he was offered an opportunity to challenge it; that the applicant merely denied the report; and that the police report could not be brushed aside merely because of the petitioner's denial. On this view, the Licensing Authority refused to grant a licence to the applicant. 3. The petitioner now contends that the legal effect of the order made by the Inspector General of Registration under rule 17 was that the order passed by the Licensing Authority cancelling his licence was set aside and the licence was suspended from 27th November 1962 till the time the Licensing Authority determined after enquiry whether the petitioner's conviction for offences under sections 352 and 447 1. P. C. and section 12 of the Cattle Trespass Act involved any moral turpitude so as to entail the cancellation of the licence. It is further urged that the Inspector General of Registration was not justified in asking the petitioner to make a fresh application for the grant of a licence when he only suspended the licence granted to the applicant and that the Licensing Authority should have revoked the suspension of the licence when it found the conviction for the aforesaid offences did not involve any moral turpitude and was not right in refusing to grant a licence to the applicant on the basis of a confidential police report that it took into consideration. The petitioner prays that appropriate writs be issued for quashing the direction given by the Inspector General of Registration for making a fresh application for the grant of a licence, for quashing the order dated the 6th September 1963 of the Licensing Authority refusing a licence, and for restoring the permanent licence granted to him in 1960. 4. In our opinion, this petition must be granted. Under rule 7 of the Rules, a permanent licence is valid till the document -writer attains the age of 60. By rule 15 it is provided that every document -writer, who resigns or whose licence is cancelled or suspended under the rules or who attains the age of 60 years, shall forthwith surrender his licence to the Licensing Authority. Rule 16 deals with the suspension or cancellation of the licence of a document -writer. It is as follows -