Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 248 (PAT)

Kameshwar Thakur v. State Of Bihar

2004-03-01

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2004
Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.7.1998, (Annexure-4) whereby petitioner has been found to be not eligible for grant of licence as document writer as also the order dated 28.7.2000, (Annexure- 8) whereby the appeal preferred against the aforesaid order has been dismissed. His further prayer is to quash the notice dated 21.1.1999, (Annexure-7) permitting only the document writer having the licence to function and the order dated 8.11.1987, by which the licence granted to him earlier has been cancelled. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner was granted the Deed Writer Licence No. 17 of 1985 for the office of the Sub Registrar at Pupri in terms of paragraph 250 of instructions and orders of Registration Department. Petitioner has been working as document writer since the year 1969 in the said office. Later on the said licence granted to the petitioner was cancelled in pursuance of the order of the District Registrar dated 7.11.1987. Notwithstanding the cancellation of licence petitioner continued with the avocation of the document writer and was not at all concerned with it till addition of sec. 68-A and 68-B in the Registration Act by Bihar Act, 6 of 1991 sec. 68-A of the Act as amended by Bihar Act, 6 of 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) prohibited a person to engage himself in the profession of document writer unless he possesses licence as provided under Sec. 68-A of the Act. sec. 68-B of the Act provides for grant of licence to document writers, same reads as follows : "68-B Grant of licence to document- writers-- (1) The Registrar of District or any other Officer authorised by him in this behalf may grant a licence, to be valid in one sub-district or one district in the prescribed form to document-writer or apprentice to document writer on an application made in this behalf on such term and conditions as may be prescribed by the Inspector-General of Registration in this behalf after conducting a written test as may be prescribed. (2) A licence may be granted to any person who has been in the profession of the document-writer for at least ten years prior to the date of the Registration (Bihar Amendment) Ordinance, 1991 came into force, without requiring him to appear in the written test referred to in Sub-sec. (2) A licence may be granted to any person who has been in the profession of the document-writer for at least ten years prior to the date of the Registration (Bihar Amendment) Ordinance, 1991 came into force, without requiring him to appear in the written test referred to in Sub-sec. (i) if the Registrar of a District or any other officer authorised by him in his behalf is satisfied that he is otherwise fit to take the profession of a document-writer. (3) A licence granted under Sub-sec. s (1) and (2) shall remain valid till the 31st day of December of the years in which the same was issued and shall be subject to renewal before the expiry of its period of validity on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. (4) (a) The licence granted under Sections (1) and (2) may at any time be suspended or cancelled on the breach of conditions prescribed or for such other reasons to be recorded in writing by the Registrar of district or the officer authorised by him after the document writer has been given sufficient opportunity to show cause against the proposed suspension or cancellation of the licence and after the same has been duly considered. (b) An appeal lie before the Inspector-General of Registration against any order passed under this section. Explanation--For the purposes of Secs. 68-A and 68-B - (1) "Document-writer" means and includes one who is engaged in the profession of preparing documents, namely, doing the work of conveyancing including investigation of titles preparation of draft deeds and engrossing and transcribing the deed including copies if any for registration or making searches and inspection under the Act and. (2) "Apprentice" means one who assists a document-writer in preparation of document and transcribes them (including copies if any) to be presented for registration." 3. In the light of the aforesaid provision notice inviting applications for grant of document writer licence was published and in pursuance thereof petitioner applied for the grant of licence as a document writer inter alia contending that he being practising as document writer since the year 1969, in terms of sec. 68-B(2) of the Act, he is entitled to get the licence without appearing in the written test. 68-B(2) of the Act, he is entitled to get the licence without appearing in the written test. The candidature of the petitioner besides other persons were considered and 14.7.1998 (Annexure-4) a list was published containing the names of persons who are eligible for grant of licence and those who are not. Name of the petitioner finds place in the list of such persons who are not eligible and it has been stated that his licence has already been cancelled by the order of the District Registrar earlier. 4. Petitioner aggrieved by the same filed representation dated 8.9.1998, (Annexure-5) before the District Registrar to reconsider its decision and to direct grant of licence of document-writer to him. Petitioner was informed by letter dated 23.9.1998, (Annexure-6) that his representation has been rejected by the District Registrar but he can take recourse to the remedy of appeal as provided under Rule 14 of the Bihar Deed Writer Licensing Rule, 1996. Later on, notice dated 21.1.1999, (Annexure-7) was issued under the signature of the Sub Registrar, Pupri in which it was notified that those persons who have not got the licence in terms of sec. 68-B of the Act shall not carry out the work of document-writer. This gave the petitioner a further cause of action to prefer appeal against the refusal to grant the document writer licence and the appeal so preferred was considered by the Secretary-cum-Inspector General of Registration who by his order dated 28.7.2000, (Annexure-8) dismissed the same. While rejecting the appeal the Inspector General took note of the fact that petitioner used to threaten and misbehave with the employees and officers of the Registration Department. It also took note of the fact that from the persons who come for registration petitioner extracted huge amount on the false ground of expenditure in the office. 5. In this writ application prayer of the petitioner is to quash the order dated 8.11.1987, cancelling his earlier licence communication (Annexure-4) in which the name of the petitioner does not find place in the list of eligible candidates order dated 21.1.1999, by which the Sub-Registrar has directed that those persons who do not have the licence u/s. 68-B of the Act shall not do the work of the document writer and order dated 28.7.2000, (Annexure-8) whereby the appeal preferred against the refusal to grant licence has been dismissed. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, appearing on behalf of the petitioner attempted to assail the order dated 8.11.1987, whereby licence No. 17 of 1985 granted to the petitioner in terms of paragraph 250 of the Instructions and Orders of Registration Department was cancelled. He points out that earlier petitioner did not challenge the same as said order did not lead to any civil consequences and now that the petitioner is not being given the licence in view of the said order petitioner has chosen to assail the same also. I am not inclined to go into the validity of the said order passed as back as on 8.11.1987, in a writ application filed on 14.2.2001. Petitioner was given the licence in terms of paragraph 250 of the Instruction and Orders of the Registration Department which was cancelled by the District Registrar by order dated 7.11.1987. Grant of licence under the instruction entitled the petitioner certain benefits which stood curtailed on its cancellation and hence this had given the petitioner a cause of action but instead of challenging the same he has slept over the matter and has chosen to challenge the same only when later on his prayer for grant of licence as document writer has been rejected. I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case in which the validity of the said order is fit to be gone into after such a long delay. 7. Mr. Shahi then contends that prior to addition of Secs. 68-A and 68-B of the Act there was no requirement of any licence and the petitioner being in the profession of the document writer for more than 10 years prior to coming into force of the Registration (Bihar Amendment) Ordinance, 1991, petitioner is entitled to get the licence in terms of sec. 68-B(2) of the Act. Petitioner had worked as Document Writer for a period of 10 years prior to the coming into force of the Registration (Bihar Amendment) Ordinance, 1991 has not been disputed but the counsel representing the respondents contends that petitioner has not been denied the licence on the ground that he lacks experience but on the ground that he is otherwise unfit for the same. 8. 8. True it is that the petitioner has been in the profession of document writer for more than ten years prior to the coming into force of the Registration (Bihar Amendment) Ordinance, 1991 but that itself, shall not entitle him to the grant of licence as document writer and the Registrar is to be further satisfied that such person is otherwise fit to take up the profession of a document writer. Rule 3(d) of the Bihar Deed Writers Licensing Rule makes only such person eligible for grant of licence who is of good moral character. Petitioner has not been found eligible on the ground that he does not possess the required experience but on the ground that his licence as earlier cancelled on certain allegation. The appellate authority had found that the petitioner used to misbehave with the officers and staff of the Registration Department and extract money from the person coming for registration in the name of the office hence not a fit person. In view of clear language of sec. 68-B of the Act the authority is to be satisfied that the person does not only have the experience of more than 10 years but is otherwise fit to take up profession of a document writer. The rule also contemplates that such person should be of good moral character. The authority being to satisfied declined to grant licence to the petitioner. 9. Now the question is as to whether the satisfaction of the authority is just and proper. Generally speaking the satisfaction of the authority if based on relevant material and sound ground is not subject to judicial review. However, in case if it is found that the satisfaction has been arrived at on consideration of irrelevant material or without considering the relevant material, same can be scrutinised while exercising the power of judicial review. In the present case, the satisfaction of the authority is on the basis of what the petitioner allegedly did in the year 1987 leading to cancellation of his licence granted under the instruction. In my opinion it is a stale material and may not be germane because of passage of time. It is said, every saint had a past and every criminal has a future. Bearing in mind the aforesaid. In my opinion it is a stale material and may not be germane because of passage of time. It is said, every saint had a past and every criminal has a future. Bearing in mind the aforesaid. I am of the opinion that denying the petitioner licence on the ground of his misbehaviour about two decades ago shall not be just and proper. 10. The authority shall now enquire about the fitness of the petitioner after giving an opportunity to him and thereafter take decision in regard to the grant of licence within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 11. In the result, the writ application is partly allowed order dated 14.7.1998, (Annexure-4) so far it relates to the petitioner and order dated 28.7.2000, (Annexure-8) affirming the same are quashed with the direction aforesaid. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.