Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1031 (PAT)

Subhash Dubey v. Shashikant Singh

2013-08-22

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, R.M.DOSHIT

body2013
ORDER These four Appeals preferred by the concerned writ petitioners under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arise from the common judgment and order dated 1st December 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC Nos. 1489/2002, 1685/2002, 1689/2002, 1774/2002 & 1833/2002 insofar as CWJC Nos. 1489/2002, 1774/2002, 1685/2002 & 1689/2002 have been dismissed by the learned single Judge. 2. The appellants are the deed writers. They claim to be in the profession since 1986-1987. They approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the action of the Registrar of Stamps in not accepting the documents drawn by the appellants on the premise that the appellants are not licensed deed writers under the Bihar Deed Writers Licensing Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) framed by the Inspector General of Registration in exercise of power conferred by Clause (bb) of sub-section (1) of Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908. Rule (3) of the Rules provides for “Qualifications” for a deed writer. Clause (c) thereof reads as under:– “(c) he has passed Deed writers licensing examination conducted under Rule : Provided that a licence may be granted to any person who has been in the profession of the documents writer for at least ten years prior to the date of the Registration (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1991 came into force, without requiring him to appear in the written test referred to in sub-section (1) if the Registrar of a District or any other officer authorized by him in this behalf is satisfied that he is otherwise fit to take the profession of a document writer.” 3. Thus, for grant of license of a deed writer, a person otherwise eligible has to pass the deed writers licensing examination or he shall be a professional deed writer at least for ten years as on the date of the Registration (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1991”). Admittedly, the appellants have not passed the deed writers licensing examination. The question, therefore, remains as to whether the appellants were in the profession of deed writing for ten years on the date of the Act of 1991. The authority below has held that the appellants had not completed ten years as deed writers as envisaged by the aforesaid Clause (c) of Rule (3) of the Rules. 4. The question, therefore, remains as to whether the appellants were in the profession of deed writing for ten years on the date of the Act of 1991. The authority below has held that the appellants had not completed ten years as deed writers as envisaged by the aforesaid Clause (c) of Rule (3) of the Rules. 4. The challenge to the decision of the authority below before the learned single Judge has failed. Therefore, these Appeals. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Rajendra Prasad has appeared for the appellants. He has relied upon certain documents produced on the record by the appellants allegedly written by some of the appellants to buttress his submission that the appellants were in the profession of deed writing since 1986-1987. 6. We are unable to agree with Mr. Rajendra Prasad. A couple of documents produced herein cannot prove that all the appellants before us were in the profession of deed writing since 1986-1987. Besides, the requirement under the aforesaid Rule is that the person shall be in the profession of deed writing for ten years on the date of the Act of 1991, i.e. they should be in the profession at least since 1981. It is not the claim of the appellants that they were in the profession since 1981. The appellants, therefore, cannot avail of the benefit of professional experience as envisaged by aforesaid Clause (c) of Rule (3) of the Rules. The only way the appellants can claim license as deed writers is to pass the deed writers licensing examination. 7. The appellants having failed to pass the licensing examination and having not completed ten years in deed writing as on the date of the Act of 1991, their claim for license is untenable. The Appeals are dismissed. Interlocutory Application Nos. 8407 of 2011 & 8408 of 2011 are disposed of. 8. We are informed at the Bar that the last such examination was conducted in 2001. Thereafter, no examination has been held for past twelve years. We do agree that the Government or, for that matter, the Inspector General of Registration has the power and authority to control the inflow of deed writers by providing certain checks, such as, the deed writers licensing examination; but if the State Government wants to control the inflow in the profession, it should also hold the examination periodically so that new and younger faces can enter the profession. If the State Government or the Inspector General of Registration fails to conduct such examination periodically, a few deed writers who were licensed initially will monopolize the art of deed writing resulting into an unhealthy competition. 9. Rule (5) of the Rules provides for “Examination”. “The licensing authority”, i.e. the Registrar of a District or any other officer authorized in that behalf is empowered to hold the examination and to set the question papers and to decide the time and place for holding such examination. In other words, the deed writers licensing examination is required to be held at local level by the District Registrar. We are sorry to note that the District Registrars have failed to perform their duty to hold the licensing examination periodically. 10. We end with a caution to the State Government and the Inspector General of Registration. We are of the opinion that the State Government or at least the Inspector General of Registration should ensure that the licensing examination is conducted by every District Registrar periodically so as to allow new faces to enter the profession. Necessary guidelines and instructions therefor may be framed and issued within two months from today. 11. The Registry will send copy of this order to the respondent no. 1 and 2, the State Government and the Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Patna forthwith.