Judgment ( 1. ) THE prayer in the petition is to direct the respondent No. 2 to accept the Mining Lease forthwith for processing of registration under the law before the expiry of period of limitation. ( 2. ) SHORT facts of the case are that Lease Deed in question was executed on 18-2-05. Petitioner appeared before respondent No. 2 on 3rd June, 2005, for registration. Respondent No. 2 refused to accept the document without assigning any reason and informed that he has the oral instructions from the Collector Neemuch not to accept this documents for registration. Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner also approach to the respondent No. 3 on 7-6-2005 in connection with registration. However, he refused to accept the petitioners request for registration instead verbally advised the petitioner to send the said documents by registered post to respondent No. 2. On 7th June, 2005 the petitioner sent a letter enclosing therewith original Lease Deed and Demand Draft towards registration fee which were also refused by the respondent No. 2. ( 3. ) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner submits that there is no reason assigned by the respondent No. 2 for not accepting document. On 21-6-2005 when the matter came up for hearing, on that date the time was sought to seek instructions. No reply has been filed by the respondents in spite of lapse of two weeks. ( 4. ) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner place reliance on a decision reported in 1985 MPLJ 395 (Kailash Mohan v. Sub. Reg. of Assur.), wherein Division Bench of this Court has observed as under :- "opportunity of hearing is not an empty formality. It has to be an opportunity in the real sense. But, we are constrained to observe that the respondent has not even followed that formality, much less affording a real opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. The averments contained in Para 6 of the petition having not been specifically traversed by the respondent with particular reference to the time of presentation and forth with refusal and returning the application, Annexure-G. The directions of this Court are not in the least followed by the respondent who, as is evident from record, either acted or was determined to act in a biased manner. The registration or refusal to register is a quasi-judicial function. The registration or refusal to register is a quasi-judicial function. It is not expected of any public authority to act in the manner the respondent did, more so in face of this Courts directions. The duty of Sub Registrar is to furnish a copy of the refusal order without payment and unnecessary delay. But, to our surprise, we find that he has collected an amount of Rs. 4. 50 ps. For supplying the certified copy of the order of refusal passed by him under this section, which in fact he was duty bound to furnish to the petitioners without any payment. Mere reading of this section would show that the refusal has to be based on legal grounds and not to on extraneous considerations, as is evident from Annexure D, where a reference had been made by the respondent to scheme No. 72 of the Indore Development Authority and the directions of the Additional Collector regarding refusal of such registration. These extraneous considerations have no place in discharge of statutory duties, more so in taking decisions of quasi-judicial nature. The duty cast on the respondents, Sub-Registrar is that when a document complete in all the respects is presented for registration, it is his bounden duty to accept and register the same. If there be any legal flaw, it is incumbent on him to comply with the provisions of the Section 71 of the Registration Act and pass an order of refusal recording his reasons in his Book No. 2. A mere refusal to accept a document for registration is dereliction of duty and disobedience of the mandatory provisions of law. " ( 5. ) IN the present case, there is no justification on the part of respondent No. 2 in replying to entertain the request of the petitioner. It is further surprising that when the registered letter was sent, was also returned, which shows that the respondent No. 2 is not discharging his duties in accordance with law. ( 6. ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case the petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No. 2 on 18-7-05 alongwith all related documents and also with certified copy of this order. Respondent No. 2 shall do the needful in accordance with law. ( 7. ) WITH the aforesaid observations this petition stands disposed of.