1 2025:CGHC:1047 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 48 of 2025 1 - Mohanlal Singh S/o Radheshyam Singh Aged About 44 Years R/o Village- Mahrajganj, P.S. And Tahsil- Balrampur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner Surguja Division Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Registrar Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Sub-Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) Balrampur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Tahsildar, Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Kailash Diwedi S/o Konduram Diwedi Aged About 55 Years R/o SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.01.08 23:04:03 +0530 2 Village- Bhanoura, P.S. And Tahsil- Bhanoura, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri A.N. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 08.01.2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner who is a document writer in District Balrampur questioning the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the Commissioner Sarguja Division, by which the Commissioner has recommended the cancellation of the license granted to the petitioner for document writing. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Commissioner has passed the order without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and even the order passed by the Commissioner is absolutely illegal, as the Commissioner is not having any authority to recommend such cancellation. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring (Annexure P/6) which is a communication of the District Registrar Balrampur dated 10.08.2024 to the Commissioner Sarguja Division submits that even the District Registrar has requested the Commissioner to close the matter, as the Commissioner is not having any power under the law to cancel the license granted to the petitioner for document writing. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the Commissioner has passed a detailed order recommending cancellation of the license of the petitioner as there are several allegations against the present 3 petitioner. As earlier there is some complaint which has been found proved that the petitioner has encroached upon government land. Hence the order passed by the Commissioner is just and proper. 4. I have heard both the parties and perused the record. 5. It appears from the order of the Commissioner that the Commissioner has not issued any notice to the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner and even the Commissioner is not authorized under law to cancel the license granted to the petitioner which is reflected from the communication dated 10.08.2024 by which the District Registrar has requested the Commissioner that the Chhattisgarh Dastawej Lekhak Niyam 1966, Clause 19 provides about the enquiry under the said Rule and the Inspector General Registration is only authorized to conduct an enquiry and pass any order regarding any license. Looking to the fact that the Commissioner is not authorized to recommend cancellation of the license granted to the petitioner and even before recommending cancellation of the license the petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity of hearing. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner dated 13.12.2024 is hereby quashed. 6. The writ petition is allowed. 7. Liberty is reserved to the State to take action, if so desire and occasion arises by the appropriate authority. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib