ORDER : 1. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The present batch of writ applications has been filed by the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 13035 of 2016 (Upendra Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and other petitioners of analogous cases, challenging the order of the Collector-Cum-District Registrar, Patna, in the Sub-registry office of Bikram, whereby and whereunder, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Patna has issued orders under the Bihar Deed-Writers Licence Rules 1996, cancelling by means of various orders (which have been appended to the respective writ applications and are to be noted against their respective cases), the licences issued to them for functioning as Deed Writers. 3. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners have been conducting their profession as deed-writers at Bikram Sub-registry Office, in terms of the licence issued to them, but all of a sudden, without any show-cause having been issued to them, their respective licences have been cancelled on the sole ground that they had participated in a Hartal by which they had absented themselves from duty on two consecutive dates. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the licence of the petitioners can be cancelled only by following the rules as laid down under Clause 2 of Rule 13 of the Rules and only after giving show-cause against the proposed cancellation, but in the instance cases, neither was any show-cause notice ever issued or given to or any explanation called for from them and without following the said Rules, licences have been cancelled which is not only violative of principle of natural justice, but also against the mandates and provisions of the Rules and Article 19(g) of the Constitution of India. He, thus, submits that the impugned orders in the entire batch of writ applications stands vitiated and are fit to be set aside. 5. Learned Senior Counsel has drawn my attention to Rule 13 of the Bihar Deed Writers Licensing Rules, 1996, which is quoted hereunder for ready reference :- “13. Cancellation and suspension of licence.-(1) The Licensing Authority may at any time suspend or cancel the licence of a document writer or apprentice on any of the following grounds:- (a) Violation of any of the rules or the conditions of the licences. Cancellation and suspension of licence.-(1) The Licensing Authority may at any time suspend or cancel the licence of a document writer or apprentice on any of the following grounds:- (a) Violation of any of the rules or the conditions of the licences. (b) Failure to attend the registration office for a period exceeding six months without a reasonable cause or without the leave or permission of the licensing authority or the registering officer within whose jurisdiction he has been practicing. (2) No order under sub-rule (i) shall be passed, unless the document writer or the apprentice, as the case may be, has been asked to show cause against the proposed suspension or cancellation of the licence and the cause shown by him has been duly considered by the Licensing Authority.” 6. It is, thus, evident that cancellation and suspension of licences of a document writer or apprentice can be made only on the basis of the provisions as enumerated in Rule 13(1) (a) and (b) and not for any other ground. Rule 13(a) clearly states that violation of any rules or the conditions of the licences or failure to attend the registration office for the period exceeding six months without a reasonable cause or without the leave or permission of the licensing authority or the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has been practicing, can be the grounds for suspension/cancellation of a licence. 7. Furthermore, Rule (2) clearly provides that no order under sub-rule (i) can be passed, unless the document writer or the apprentice, as the case may be, has been asked to show cause against the proposed cancellation or suspension of the licence and the cause shown by him has been duly considered by the Licensing Authority. 8. It is, thus, evident from a bare perusal of the above Rules that the Licensing Authority and the Collector has passed the impugned orders without following the statutory provisions and in clear violation thereof. It is thus a clear transgression of the Rules and cannot be sustained by any stretch of imagination. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that there is a provision of appeal before the authorities. However, this Court is not inclined to appreciate such a submission as in view of the fact that where statutory wrong has been occasioned, the petitioners may not be relegated to the appellate authority for deciding the fates. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that there is a provision of appeal before the authorities. However, this Court is not inclined to appreciate such a submission as in view of the fact that where statutory wrong has been occasioned, the petitioners may not be relegated to the appellate authority for deciding the fates. 10. In one of the writ applications, a stand has been taken that since the petitioners had abstained from duties and had caused disturbances, a Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 120 of 2016 dated 11.04.2016 has been registered under Section 147, 149, 448, 427 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the fate of such case would not extinguish the right of the present petitioners for receiving notice. Moreover, it is not known as to what happened to these cases, until and unless there is any conviction in the same, the petitioners cannot be punished for this score. 11. The present petitioners relate to the Sub-registry office, Bikram and Vaishali and it is also not evident as to whether their names figured in the said First Information Report. 12. Thus, in the considered opinion of the Court, the authorities have acted in wholly arbitrary and illegal manner occasioning the statutory wrong on the petitioners for which interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is wholly warranted. 13. In the result, the writ applications are allowed. 14. The impugned orders as contained in each of the writ applications stand quashed and the licences of the respective petitioners are also restored.