ORDER : N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the Respondent registration authorities in not entertaining and registering the sale deed which may be presented by the petitioner in respect of the flat bearing of Plot No.22 Eastern Part in survey Nos.47Part and 48 admeasuring 100 Sq Yards or 83.6 Sq Mtrs Situated at Boduppal Village under Boduppal Municipal Corporation, Medipally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, SRO Uppal on the ground that the said property is part of the waqf gazette notification dated 09.02.1989 at Sl.No.2746 filed the present Writ Petition. 2 . Heard Sri K. Sadanand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the record. 3 . Facts in brief as stated in the Writ Petition are as follows: Petitioner claims to be the purchaser of Plot No.22 Eastern Part in survey Nos.47Part and 48 admeasuring 100 Sq Yards or 83.6 Sq Mtrs Situated at Boduppal Village under Boduppal Municipal Corporation, Medipally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, SRO Uppal (herein after referred as ‘subject property’) from its vendor who earlier purchased the subject property by a sale deed bearing No.11760 of 2017 registered at S.R.O., Uppal, Medchal-Malkajgiri district. 4 . Thereafter on 26.11.2024, the petitioner enquired with respondent No.3 for registration and was informed that on the instructions of respondent No.4, respondent No.3 was requested not to entertain and register the sale deed in respect of the subject property on the ground that the said land is part of Waqf Gazettee notification bearing No.6A dated 09.02.1989 at Sl.No.2746. It is further submitted that on verification of copy of the said notification, it is observed that Sl.No.2746 does not refer to the land in Sy.Nos.47 Part and 48 of Boduppal village at all and the said Gazettee notification was set aside by this Court in batch of Writ Petitions in a W.P.Nos.12275 of 1993, 25392 of 1996 and 681 of 1997 in B. Gowra Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh , [ 2002 (3) ALT 439 ] confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that when once the said notification itself is set aside, respondent No.4 is required to register any sale deed in respect of the subject land. 5 . It is further submitted that when once the said notification itself is set aside, respondent No.4 is required to register any sale deed in respect of the subject land. 5 . Referring to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.21896 of 2023 dated 11.12.2023 and W.P.No.16142 of 2023 dated 12.07.2023, it is further submitted that the action of the registration authorities in not entertaining and registering the sale deed which may be presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject property is patently illegal and impermissible. Questioning the same, petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. 6 . Respondent No.3 filed counter and submitted that the Petitioner has not presented any document for registration and further submits that petitioner orally enquired in the office and had not given chance to the Respondent No.3 either to receive, process, register or refuse the document on the grounds mentioned in Rule 161 r/w. Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 by presenting the duly executed Sale deed with challan evidencing remittance of the duties. 7 . It is further submitted that the Telangana State Wakf Board has issued a letter in F.No.PROT/MDCL/2010 dated 09-02-2022 informing that the property in Sy.No.47 Part and 48 situated in Boduppal village is notified as Wakf property, among other survey numbers and the subject property is listed in the Gazette No.6-A dated 09-02-1989 and included in the prohibitory list under the provisions of Section 22- A(1)(C) of the Registration Act. Thereafter respondent No.3 requested the State Wakf Board, vide letter dated 23.08.2024 to take necessary action in view of the orders of the High Court in W.A.Nos.745 and 868 of 2002, 778 and 885 of 2002 and 729 and 878 of 2002 dated 21.03.2011 dismissing the Writ Appeals filed by the State Wakf Board. The said appeals were challenged in this Court earlier and the Telangana State Wakf Board has been requested to provide the updated modification details, if any, to the Commissioner and Inspector- General of Registration and Stamps, Telangana. 8 . It is further submitted that the Telangana State Government issued Registration Rules under G.O.Ms.No.121 (Revenue-Registration-I) Department, dated 01.06.2016. Rule 239-B stipulates as follows: "239-B:The Wakf Board shall maintain a Register of Auqaf containing the particulars of all Wakf properties and all title deeds and documents relating thereto. 8 . It is further submitted that the Telangana State Government issued Registration Rules under G.O.Ms.No.121 (Revenue-Registration-I) Department, dated 01.06.2016. Rule 239-B stipulates as follows: "239-B:The Wakf Board shall maintain a Register of Auqaf containing the particulars of all Wakf properties and all title deeds and documents relating thereto. Sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Wakf Act, 1995 , provides that the Board shall forward the details of properties entered in the Register of Auqaf to the concerned land record office having jurisdiction over the Wakf property. The concerned land record office, in turn, under Sub-section (3), shall either make necessary entries in the land record or communicate its objections to the Board within six months from the date of registration of the Wakf property under Section 36. After completing this process, the Chief Executive Officer of the Telangana State Wakf Board shall update all records with the concerned Revenue officials and furnish lists of immovable properties falling under Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 22-A , including any subsequent additions, deletions, or modifications, to the District Registrar and the Inspector-General of Registration under proper acknowledgment in Forms V and VI of Appendix XI. These lists shall be signed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Telangana State Wakf Board." 9 . It is further submitted that the said Rule empowers the State Wakf Board to furnish lists of immovable properties falling under Section 22-A(1) (C) of the Registration Act, including subsequent additions, deletions, or modifications, to the Registration Department. Hence, Respondents Nos.1, 2, and 3 remain passive observers in this matter until the State Wakf Board initiates the deletion of the property's Survey numbers based on the High Court's adjudication in various petitions, as stated by the Petitioner and the State Wakf Board, vide Letter dated 23.08.2024 was requested to take necessary action in view of the orders of the High Court in the aforesaid Writ Appeals, which were dismissed. 10 . Learned Assistant Government Pleader has drawn attention of this Court to Sections 32 and 34 of the Registration Act 1908, which reads as under:- “ 32. 10 . Learned Assistant Government Pleader has drawn attention of this Court to Sections 32 and 34 of the Registration Act 1908, which reads as under:- “ 32. Persons to present documents for registration .—Except in the cases mentioned in 1 [sections 31, 88 and 89], every document to be registered under this Act, whether such registration be compulsory or optional, shall be presented at the proper registration-office,— (a) by some person executing or claiming under the same, or, in the case of a copy of a decree or order, claiming under the decree or order, or (b) by the representative or assign of such a person, or (c) by the agent of such a person, representative or assign, duly authorized by power-of attorney executed and authenticated in manner hereinafter mentioned. 34. Enquiry before registration by registering officer .—(1) Subject to the provisions contained in this Part and in sections 41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registered under this Act, unless the persons executing such document, or their representatives, assigns or agents authorized as aforesaid, appear before the registering officer within the time allowed for presentation under sections 23, 24, 25 and 26.” 11 . Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that the procedure for seeking registration of a document is that the parties first and foremost have to execute the document by signing the document by following the provisions contemplated under Sections 32 and 34 of the Registration Act 1908 and shall present the document before the registering authority by paying registration charges, stamp duty and other incidental charges by way of challan and the estimated amount for the same will be available in IGRS website, enabling the parties to pay the challan. Thereafter, the parties shall approach the registering authority, enclosing the challan along with the relevant documents, which proves that the parties have approached and made a proper presentation of document sough for registration. However, in the present case, the petitioner has not enclosed the copy of challan, and no application was filed as a proof that the petitioner had approached the respondent No.3. 12 . However, in the present case, the petitioner has not enclosed the copy of challan, and no application was filed as a proof that the petitioner had approached the respondent No.3. 12 . Learned Assistant Government Pleader has also placed on record, the circular instructions issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Telangana, Hyderabad vide Circular Memo No.G3/9122/2024, dated 12.08.2024, which reads as under:- “Attention of the Sub-Registrars and Officers in the address entry is invited to the reference cited, wherein Hon'ble High Court, while disposing the W.P No.16836/2024 and batch cases, dated: 09-07-2024 issued common orders with certain guidelines to the Registration Authorities and instructions to concerned parties. In compliance with the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, the following instructions are issued. i) Whenever parties/citizen approach to register the documents, the concerned Sub-Registrar, shall as expeditiously as possible preferably within one week, either register the document or pass refusal order, in terms of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and communicate the same to the concerned parties. In no case, the Sub-Registrars shall not refuse the documents orally for registration, and it must be followed by a written refusal orders. ii) In case documents are refused for registration, the Sub-Registrars shall inform the procedure for refund of Stamp Duty and registration charges to the concerned parties/Citizens clearly. The refund shall be strictly as per Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Registration Act, 1908 . iii) Sub-Registrars shall maintain a watch Register/ General Diary (GD Book/ Entry Book/ Register) at every Sub-Registrar Office and to make entries of the parties approaching the office on a particular date and time for the purpose for which they approached the office, so as to avoid interference, tampering and misrepresentation. In view of the above Sub-Registrars are hereby directed to maintain a Register in the following proforma. Sl.No. Date Time Name of the Party Full Postal Address Contact No. Purpose of Visit and Property Details Signature of the Party Remarks All the Sub- Registrars shall invariably maintain the register in the above proforma in their office and shall be kept open to the visiting public to the office to record their purpose for the future reference. The District Registrars shall ensure that the above Registers are opened and maintained in the each Sub-Registrar Office on regular basis. The District Registrars shall ensure that the above Registers are opened and maintained in the each Sub-Registrar Office on regular basis. iv) The registering authorities shall follow the guidelines issued in the cases of Vinjamuri Rajagopla Chary Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and M/s. Invecta Technologies Private Limited Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh. These instructions shall be followed scrupulously. If any deviation is found, suitable disciplinary action will be initiated. These instructions will not supersede the citizen charter prescribed for various services rendered by the department.” 13. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that in the circular dated 12.08.2024, the sub-registrars were directed to register/refuse the documents presented before them, duly following the guidelines issued in the cases of Vinjamuri Rajagopla Chary Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2016 (2) ALD 236 (FB) : 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 407 and M/s. Invecta Technologies Private Limited Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2024 (1)ALT 272 and pass order, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within one week from the date of receipt of the documents. 14 . Strongly disputing the contentions of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner neither approached the respondent No.3 nor presented any document for registration. As such, the question of refusal by the respondent does not arise, and therefore, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued directing the respondent to register the so called proposed sale deed. 15 . It is not out of the place to observe that this Court on many occasions observed that the petitioners in their writ affidavits are stating that the Sub-Registrars are orally refusing to register the documents. It is striking to note that the parties in order to ensure that the document presented for registration shall not be rejected/refused for registration are filing writ petitions without following procedure contemplated under Section 32 and 34 of the Registration Act 1908 are trying to seek orders by misleading the Court. Many of such instances have come to the notice of this Court. 16 . Under those circumstance, it is relevant to refer the order dated 19.08.1999, passed in Deverneni Linga Rao Vs. Sub-Registrar, Peddapalli , [ 1999 (6) ALD 144 ] . The relevant paragraphs are extracted here under:- “8. Many of such instances have come to the notice of this Court. 16 . Under those circumstance, it is relevant to refer the order dated 19.08.1999, passed in Deverneni Linga Rao Vs. Sub-Registrar, Peddapalli , [ 1999 (6) ALD 144 ] . The relevant paragraphs are extracted here under:- “8. The well established Rule, subject to certain exceptions, is that the applicant for mandamus must show by evidence, that he made a demand calling upon the concerned authority to perform his public duty and that was met with refusal either bywords or by conduct Applying this salutary rule, the Apex Court in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd Etc., v.- Union of India, thus : "..... The powers of the High Court under Article 226 arc not strictly confined to the limits to which proceedings for prerogative writs are subject in English practice. Nevertheless, the well-recognised rule that no writ or order in the nature of a mandamus would issue when there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty applies in this country as well. Even in cases of alleged breaches of mandatory duties, the salutary general rule, which is subject to certain exceptions, applied by us, as it is in England, when a writ of mandamus is asked for, could be stated as we find it set out in Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd edition, Vol.13, P. 106): 'As a general rule the order will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply, and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and that that demand was met by a refusal". From the aforementioned facts and circumstances it is clear that the petitioners could not and did not show that they made a demand to the respondent and that was met with refusal. Therefore, it is not possible to issue the declaration sought for or the consequential direction commanding the respondent herein to register the sale deeds proposed to be executed by the petitioners in favour of their purchasers. This view of mine gains full support from the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in D. Ratnasundari Devi v. Commissioner of Urban Land Ceiling, . 9. This view of mine gains full support from the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in D. Ratnasundari Devi v. Commissioner of Urban Land Ceiling, . 9. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed, but without costs. However, this order will not preclude the petitioners from presenting the sale deeds for registration before the respondent. In such an event, I am sure, the respondent will immediately discharge his statutory duties mentioned in Part XI of the Act and consider registerability of the sale deeds. I am also sure that in case the registration is refused, he will certainly record the reasons as enjoined by Section 71 of the Act and furnish a copy thereof, if the petitioners apply for the same.” 17 . It is also relevant to refer the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Jayaram and others Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and other , [(2022) 12 Supreme Court Cases 815] , the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:- “10.It is well-settled that the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything. A litigant is bound to state all facts which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds some vital or relevant material in order to gain advantage over the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud with the court as well as with the opposite parties which cannot be countenanced. 11. This Court in Prestige Lights Ltd. V. State Bank of India has held that a prerogative remedy is not available as a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, a writ court would indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party which is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. It was held thus: “33. It is thus clear that though the appellant Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. It was held thus: “33. It is thus clear that though the appellant Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a court of law is also a court of equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter.” 12. In Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , this Court has reiterated that the writ remedy is an equitable one and a person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. Such person should not suppress any material fact but also should not take recourse to legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law. 13. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others , it was held thus: “34. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. 35. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. 35. The underlying object has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in the leading case of R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioner in the following words: … it has been for many years the rule of the court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts—it says facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it—the court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts; and the penalty by which the court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the court will set aside any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement.” 36. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power a writ court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the court, the court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating, “We will not listen to your application because of what you have done.” The rule has been evolved in the larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. 37. In Kensington Income Tax Commissioners .(supra), Viscount Reading, C.J. observed: (KB pp. 37. In Kensington Income Tax Commissioners .(supra), Viscount Reading, C.J. observed: (KB pp. 495-96) “… Where an ex parte application has been made to this Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the application was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, but stated them in such a way as to mislead the Court as to the true facts, the Court ought, for its own protection and to prevent an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed any further with the examination of the merits. This is a power inherent in the Court, but one which should only be used in cases which bring conviction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceived. Before coming to this conclusion a careful examination will be made of the facts as they are and as they have been stated in the applicant’s affidavit, and everything will be heard that can be urged to influence the view of the Court when it reads the affidavit and knows the true facts. But if the result of this examination and hearing is to leave no doubt that the Court has been deceived, then it will refuse to hear anything further from the applicant in a proceeding which has only been set in motion by means of a misleading affidavit.” 38. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play “hide and seek” or to “pick and choose” the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because “the court knows law but not facts”. 39. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because “the court knows law but not facts”. 39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs.(supra) is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and “clean breast” cannot hold a writ of the court with “soiled hands”. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court.” 18 . In the case on hand, the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner enquired about getting a sale deed registered, respondent No.3 informed that on the instructions of respondent No.4, respondent No.3 was requested not to entertain and register the sale deed in respect of the subject property on the ground that the said land is part of Waqf Gazettee notification bearing No.6A dated 09.02.1989 at Sl.No.2746. 19 . It is Pertinent to note that in the present case neither a refusal order was passed nor any reason assigned in writing by the respondent No.3 denying registration and infact the sale deed was not presented for registration before respondent No.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, who verified the pleadings of writ affidavit, had misrepresented the facts and tried to secure an order. 20 . In this connection, it is significant to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti Sardarshahar and another Vs. Union of India and other , [AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 2221] wherein at para 11 observed as under: “11 . 20 . In this connection, it is significant to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti Sardarshahar and another Vs. Union of India and other , [AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 2221] wherein at para 11 observed as under: “11 . It is a settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. In Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana [ AIR 1988 SC 2181 ] this Court has observed as under : “13. … In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. There is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter- affidavit. While in a pleading i.e. a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit, not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it.” 21 . In my considered opinion, the aforesaid submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is well founded. Admittedly, the petitioner did not produce any documentary proof in support of their averment that she had executed and presented the sale deed for registration before respondent No.3, and the same was refused for registration. The petitioner could not even mention the date on which she had approached the respondent. Therefore, it is difficult for this Court to accept the statement of the petitioner that the petitioner had approached the respondent authority for registration, more so, when that statement is specifically denied by the respondent. 22 . The petitioner could not even mention the date on which she had approached the respondent. Therefore, it is difficult for this Court to accept the statement of the petitioner that the petitioner had approached the respondent authority for registration, more so, when that statement is specifically denied by the respondent. 22 . At this stage, it is relevant to refer the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Syal V. State of Punjab, 2003 Supp(1) SCR 242 dated 22.05.2003, the relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:- “In order to sustain and maintain sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings in law courts it is necessary that parties should not make false or knowingly, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and/or should not conceal material facts with a design to gain some advantage or benefit at the hands of the court, when a court is considered as a place where truth and justice are the solemn pursuits. If any party attempts to pollute such a place by adopting recourse to make misrepresentation and is concealing material facts it does so at its risk and cost. Such party must be ready to take consequences that follow on account of its own making. At times lenient or liberal or generous treatment by courts in dealing with such matters are either mistaken or lightly taken instead of learning proper lesson. Hence there is a compelling need to take serious view in such matters to ensure expected purity and grace in the administration of justice.” 23 . In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that any false statement in the petition is abuse of law and serious view has to be taken by Court. In the present case, the petitioner in order to suit her case and to secure an order has made misleading averments. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. 24 . However, it is made clear that this order will not preclude the petitioner from presenting any executed document for registration before the registering authority, by duly following the due procedure as contemplated under law. 25 . With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.