@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
M. Venugopal, J.@mdashThe Petitioner has projected the present Writ of Mandamus praying for passing of an Order by this Court in directing the Respondents to issue Certificate of Document Writer Licence by either correcting the existing Certificate bearing Serial No. 412 and Registration No. Co 30950 dated 20.07.1998 or by issuing fresh certificate of Document Writer in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of the latest representation dated 16.11.2012. According to the Petitioner, he passed the S.S.L.C. and due to family circumstances, he was constrained to opt for employment in the office of the Sub-Registrar as the Assistant to the Document Writer and over a period he learnt the skill of document writing and registration procedure. As such, he took part in the examination conducted by the Respondents for issuance of Certificate to him authorising his as a Document Writer. During the year 1997 such examination was conducted. Later, no such examination ever was conducted by the Respondents. He became qualified in the examination, while issuing the Certificate bearing Serial No. 412 and Registration No. Co 30950 dated 20.07.1998, somehow clerical mistake has been crept in. The printed format had two options viz., ''Document Writer'' & ''Copy Writer''. Due to sheer mistake, the portion of Document Writer was struck off instead of striking off the Copy Writer. With the help of mistaken certificate, he has difficulties in performing duties as the Document Writer directly and every time to take shelter under some of the Document Writer or an Advocate to register the document, thereby he is substantially incurring the loss.
2. There is no posting called Copy Writer since the year 1985 and the Respondents had conducted examinations for issuing certificates to Document Writer. With the certificate, no posting in the Government can be claimed. On the other hand, with the certificate, he can improve himself in employment legally. As there is no examination conducted for the post of the Copy Writer and only examination conducted for Document Writer, which can be seen clearly from the Application form he has applied, enclosed in the typed set of papers, the Respondents ought to have corrected the mistake as found in the certificate issued to him. But, till the date of filing of the Writ Petition, the same was not rectified. He made representations to the 1st Respondent directly and on his behalf, his father also made several representations for all these years. On 16.11.2012, he made representations to the 1st Respondent wherein he has mentioned about various remainders and the communication, he has received from the 1st Respondent as well.
3. The 1st Respondent had sent a reply dated 15.04.2009 to the Petitioner directing him to send the request through proper channel, despite the fact whenever he made correspond with the 1st Respondent, he marked a copy to the 2nd Respondent/Jurisdictional Officer. As per order of the 1st Respondent, he sent further request to correct the mistake in the Certificate duly enclosing the copies through 2nd Respondent immediately, which can be seen from the correspondence of the 2nd Respondent, who had declared all the files, had already sent to the 1st Respondent and thereafter, till this date there was no response either from the 1st Respondent or from the 2nd Respondent. Both the Respondents were not appreciating the plight of the poor Document Writer and his sufferings.
4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the failure on the part of Respondents to rectify the mistake committed, while issuing the Certificate had grossly affected the employment opportunities of the Petitioner and the same directly offend the constitutional right as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the violation of Petitioner''s constitutional rights can hardly be delayed endlessly without rectifying the mistake.
5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondents are not paying any attention in redressing the grievances of the Petitioner and the mistake that had occurred in the present case had caused serious prejudice to the Petitioner in as much as he could not perform his duties as Document Writer.
6. Lastly, it is the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Respondents had not even sent any response to the remainders and representations sent by the Petitioner and therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to file the present Writ Petition.
7. No counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Respondents and no records were produced before this Court.
8. At this stage, this Court pertinently points out that the Petitioner, in the typed set of papers filed to the Writ Petition, has enclosed a Xerox Copy of the Application dated 25.02.1997 wherein on top of the Application, it is mentioned as ''the Application for the examination of the year 1997 Document Writer/Copy Writer, in Serial No. 12 of the said Application under the caption, ''Details of Enclosures'', it is mentioned as ''S.S.L.C. Certificate, Birth Certificate, Demand Draft, Passport Size Photo, Name, Address and Signed Hall Ticket, Self Addressed Cover Affixed with one Rupee Stamp.''
9. Also, in the aforesaid Application dated 25.02.1997, the Petitioner has affixed his signature to the Declaration that he certifies as per Rule (5) of the Tamil Nadu Document Writers Licence Rules 1982, Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Copy Writers Licence Rules, 1971. He is eligible to write the examination and further added that all the statements made in the application are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
10. The Petitioner was issued with the Certificate dated 20.07.1998 by the Additional Inspector General of Registration Department stating that he had passed in the Examination conducted for obtaining Copy Writer Licence.
11. It comes to be known that the Petitioner''s father addressed a communication dated 08.04.2009 to the 1st Respondent/Inspector General of Registration stating that the certificate was wrongly issued to his son viz., the Writ Petitioner who appeared and passed the test of ''Document Writers'' Examinations held on 20.07.1997. However, he was issued with the certificate for ''Copy Writer''. Further, in the said communication, the Petitioner''s father had mentioned that at the time of issuance of certificate to his son (Writ Petitioner), he was working in Pudukkottai Division (Highways) and he could not notice the certificate and further, having noticed the major mistake in the said certificate, he had no other option to seek proper certificate for his son etc. and further requested for issuance of necessary certificate of ''Document Writers'' Certificate at an early date.
12. The Petitioner''s father also addressed another letter dated 28.04.2009 addressed to the District Registrar, Registration Department, North Chennai, on the subject of requesting for the issuance of certificate of Document Writer. The Petitioner sent a communication dated 12.06.2009 through RPAD stating that he had enclosed the copy of the Application form submitted by him in respect of the Document Writer examination of the year 1997 and requested for issuance of Document Writer Licence. On 23.06.2009, the District Registrar, Administration, North Chennai addressed a letter Ref. No. 6274/A3/2009 stating that his application was forwarded to the Head Office of the Registration Department. Ultimately, the Petitioner addressed a representation dated 16.11.2012 requesting for issuance of corrected Document Writer Certificate.
13. It is to be noted that the Rule 2(b) of the Tamil Nadu Document Writers Licence Rules, 1982 defines "Copy Writer" meaning a person holding a licence under the Tamil Nadu Copy Writers Licence Rules, 1971. Section 2(d) defines "Document Writer" which means and includes a person engaged in the profession of preparing documents, namely, doing the work of conveyancing including investigation of title, preparation of draft needs and engrossing the deed on the stamp paper or plain paper for registration. Section 2(f) defines "Licence" means Document Writer''s Licence granted under these rules.
14. As a matter of fact, Rule 2(g) of the Tamil Nadu Document Writers Licence Rules, 1982 defines "Licensing Authority" meaning the Inspector General of Registration; or the 2[Deputy Inspector-General of Registration of the respective zone] authorised by him in this behalf in respect of State Licenses and the District Registrar in respect of District and Sub-district Licenses] 2[Note:- The expression was substituted by G.O.Ms. No. 49, CT & RE, dated 15.4.2010, Publ. In T.N.G. Gaz., Pt. III, S. 1(a), dated 5.5.2010].
15. Rule 4(1) enjoins that ''No person shall be eligible for a licence unless he has passed the Document Writer''s Licence Test held by the 1[Inspector General of Registration]'' 1[Note:- Substituted by G.O.Ms. No. 34, CT, dated 8.3.2001, w.e.f. 4.4.2001]. However, Rule 4(2) enjoins as follows:
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) above, the following persons are eligible for the grant of a licence:-
[Item (i) in the sub-rule (2) omitted by G.O. Ms. No. 1313 C.T. & R.E. Dated 29.11.82]
(ii) A member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India constituted under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (Central Act XXXVIII of 1949);
(iii) Any retired official of the Registration Department who had the required qualification to be appointed as a Sub-Registrar.
[(iv) Any holder of Certificate in Document Writing issued by recognized Universities in Tamil Nadu.]
[Note:- Item (iv) was added by G.O.Ms. No. 34, CT, dated 8.3.2001, w.e.f. 4.4.2001].
(v) [* * *].
*[Note:- Item (v) was omitted by G.O.Ms. No. 317, CT & RE, dated 23.5.90].
4.A. [Omitted]
[Note:- Rule 4-A Omitted by G.O.Ms. No. 34, CT, dated 8.3.2001, w.e.f. 4.4.2001].
16. Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Document Writers Licence Rules, 1982 refers to as follows:
6. Test.-(a)(i) The 1[Inspector General of Registration] shall conduct as often as he considers necessary, a test called "Document Writers'' Licensing Test" for licensing persons as "Document Writers".
(ii) The test shall be held at the headquarters of every Registration District after calling for application, for admission to the test atleast a month in advance by means of notices published on the notice boards of all registration offices and in one or two Tamil dailies;
(iii) The application for admission to the test shall be in the Form prescribed by the [Inspector General of Registration];
1.(iv) 2[The fee for admission to the test shall be 3[Rs. 200/- (Rupees Two hundred only)].
1[Note:- Substituted by G.O.Ms. No. 34, CT, dt. 8.3.2001, w.e.f. 4.4.2001.]
2[Sub-rule (iv) of Rule 6 substituted by G.O.Ms. No. 317, CT & RE 23.5.90]
3[Substituted by G.O.Ms. NO. 49, CT & RE, dt 15.4.2010, pub. In T.N.G. Gaz., Pt. III, S. 1(a), dated 5.5.2010]
(b) The test shall consist of two papers of the duration of three hours such-
(i) Paper I shall be on Registration Procedure and Acts and Rules bearing on the registration of documents Questions shall be set on the Acts set out below connected with registration-
(1) The Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules thereunder including the Table of Fees;
(2) The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the rules made thereunder;
(3) The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Central Act IV of 1882);
(4) The Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961);
(5) The Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978);
(ii) Paper II shall be on drafting of several kinds of documents (any standard work on drafting of documents as prescribed by 4[Inspector General of Registration] in the notice calling for application).
4[Note:- Substituted by G.O.Ms. No. 34, CT. Dated 8.3.2001, w.e.f. 4.4.2001].
(c) The results of the examination shall be published in the notice board of all registration offices and on the notice board of the Office of the Inspector General of Registration.
17. Rule 7(1) dealing with ''Age'' enjoins that ''No person shall be eligible to apply for Document Writers'' Licence Test unless he has completed 2[twenty five years of age] on the date of calling for applications. Rule 7(2) reads as follows:
(2) Other qualification for admission to the Document Writers Test No person shall be eligible to apply for 3[Document Writers] Licensing 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 licences.]
4[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.]
Explanation.-For the purpose of this rule, a person shall be deemed to possess an adequate knowledge of Tamil if he has passed the 5[S.S.L.C., Examination] with Tamil as one of the subjects or passed the 2[S.S.L.C. Examination] in Tamil Medium or passed the Second Class Language Test in Tamil conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.]
3[Notes:- For rule 7, the New rule 7 substituted by G.O.Ms. No. 317 C.T. & R.E. Dated 23.5.1990.]
2, 3, 4[Substituted by G.O. Ms. No. 49, CT & RE, dt., 15.4.2010, pub. in T.N.G. Gaz., Pt., III, S. 1(a) dated 5.5.2010.]
5[For the expression "Higher Secondary Examination" the expression "S.S.L.C. Examination" substituted by G.O. Ms. No. 155 C.T. & R.E. Dated 29.04.1992.
18. Rule 11 speaks of ''Validity of Licence''. Rule 12 speaks of ''Period of licence''. Rule 13 deals with ''Renewal of licence''. Rule 15 deals with ''List of document writers to be exhibited on notice boards''. Rule 16 deals with ''Suspension and cancellation of the licence''. Rule 17(a) specifies filing of ''An Appeal'' against an order passed by the District Registrar under rule 16 which shall be made to the Inspector General of Registration within two months from the date of the order. Rule 18 deals with ''Register of licences and renewals''.
19. It is to be borne in mind that Section 2(b) of the Tamil Nadu Copy Writers Licence Rules, 1971 mentions ''Copy Writer'' meaning a person who has obtained a licence under these rules. Rule 2(c) deals with ''Licence'' meaning a Copy Writer''s Licence granted under these rules. Rule 3 specifies ''Licensing of copy writers''. Rule 6 deals with ''Eligibility for Licence'' and the same runs as follows:
No persons shall be eligible for a licence unless he has passed the test prescribed in Rule 8 1[or passed the Typewriting examination both in Tamil and English with Higher Grade in any one]
[Note:- Substituted by G.O.Ms. No. 50, CT, dated 17.4.2001, w.e.f. 16.5.2001].
20. Rule 7 under the head ''Age'' is as follows:
7. Age.-(1) No person shall be eligible to apply for Copy Writers Licence Test unless he has completed eighteen (18) years of age on the date of calling for application.
1[Note:- New rule 7 substituted by G.O.Ms. No. 317, CT & RE, dated 23.5.1990.]
(2) Other educational qualification for admission to test.-No person shall be eligible to apply for the test prescribed in rule 8 unless he has passed the tenth standard or its equivalent examination:
2[Omitted]
[Note:- Omitted by G.O.Ms. No. 50, CT, dated 17.4.2001, w.e.f. 16.5.2001. (The omitted Proviso reads as follows: Provided that the persons holding copy writers licence as on 23rd May 1990 may continue as such till they complete sixty years of age.)].
21. Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Copy Writers Licence Rules, 1971 under the caption ''Test'' enjoins as follows:
8. Test.-(a) The Inspector General shall conduct as often as he considers necessary a test of two hours duration for licensing individuals as copy-writers. The test shall be held at the headquarters of every registration district after calling for application for admission to the test atleast a month in advance by means of notices published on the notice-boards of all the registration offices. The applications for admission to the test shall be in the form prescribed by the Inspector General. This test shall be for good handwriting, accuracy in transcription and the mode of preparation of copies. The fee for admission to the test shall be 1[Rs. 25/-] for each candidate:
[Provided that a retired officer of the Registration Department of Tamil Nadu having good handwriting shall not be required to appear for the test but shall be eligible to obtain a licence on payment of fee of rupees twenty five.]
[Note:- I & 2 substituted by G.O.Ms. No. 317, CT & RE, dated 23.5.90.]
22. Rule 10 speaks of ''Validity of licence''. Rule 11 refers to ''Period of licence''. Rule 14 deals with Renewal of licence''.
23. Admittedly, the Petitioner seeks a Mandamus relief in the Writ Petition which is a discretionary one, in the eye of law. The object of Mandamus is to compel of a legal duty and performance part of some other person or body who is entrusted by law with that duty. In fact, a Court of Law in a proceeding for Mandamus will never sit as a Court of Appeal so as to examine the facts or to substitute its wisdom for the discretion vested by law in the person or body. Moreover, in the absence of enforceable legal right, no Mandamus would lie. If there is an unexplained delay on the part of a litigant seeking the relief of Mandamus, then, the Writ will suffer from latches or unexplained delay in question.
24. It is true that a Writ of Mandamus lies against any person or authority performing to be duty. Such person/authority owes a positive obligation to the aggrieved party and as such is amenable to the Writ jurisdiction.
25. As far as the present case is concerned, a perusal of the Application dated 25.02.1997, filled up by the Petitioner in respect of ''Document Writer/Copy Writer'' Examination of the year 1997, by this Court clearly indicates that the Petitioner in Serial No. 10 had stated that in his Education qualification was S.S.L.C. and he had enclosed his S.S.L.C., Birth Certificate etc.
26. Significantly, at this stage, this Court pertinently points out that for the qualification for the post of Document Writer under Rule 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Document Writers Licence Rules, 1982 is that (i) A degree from a recognised University; (ii) Typewriting either by lower or higher grade both in Tamil and English; Provided that a diploma in Computer Application shall be an additional qualification.
27. Per contra, the qualification for the post of Copy Writer as per the Tamil Nadu Copy Writers Licence Rules, 1971 is that a pass in 10th standard or its equivalent examination. The duration of the test for Tamil Nadu Copy Writers Licence Rules, 1971 is for two hours. The test for obtaining a Document Writers'' Licence will relate to the test of two papers of the duration of three hours each and the Paper I shall be on Registration Procedure and Acts and Rules etc. and Paper II shall be on drafting of several kinds of documents. Therefore, it is pellucidly clear that the qualification for the post of Copy Writer is different from Document Writer and vice versa.
28. That apart, the Petitioner took part in the examination held on 20.07.1997 for the examination of Document Writer/Copy Writer. He obtained the Certificate of Copy Writer dated 20.07.1998 from the Additional Inspector General of Registration [said to be a mistakenly issued]. Nearly after lapse of 11 years [from the date of obtaining the certificate of Copy Writer], the Petitioner, through his father, submitted his first representation dated 08.04.2009 addressed to the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai seeking issuance of Document Writer Certificate.
29. Moreover, the Petitioner, after making the first representation through his father dated 08.04.2009 and making a last representation dated 16.11.2012, has filed the present Writ Petition before this Court on 04.12.2012, thereby three years had elapsed. Though the aforesaid nearly three years delay may not be put against the Petitioner, certainly, the silence on the part of the Writ Petitioner after obtaining the Copy Writer Certificate on 20.07.1998, till he made a representation through his father on 08.04.2009, the delay of 11 years is certainly an adverse circumstance and clearly points out to the latches and his acquiescence. Further, he has not established that he was qualified in all respects to apply for Document Writer''s Licence Test held on 20.07.1997. Also, there is no explanation on the side of the Petitioner as to why he kept quite for the aforesaid 11 years and the unexplained and inordinate delay on his part, drives this Court to refuse the relief of Writ of Mandamus to the Petitioner. Viewed in that perspective, the Writ Petition fails. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. It is made clear that the dismissal of the Writ Petition will not preclude the Petitioner to apply for the Document Writers'' Licensing Test and to obtain a necessary licence in this regard, if he satisfies the requirements as regards the age, other qualification prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Document Writers Licence Rules, 1982. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.
