IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3711 of 2010 Ran Vijay Prasad Singh Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Inspector General Of Registration Bihar , Patna 3. The District Registrar Cum Collector, Gaya 4. The District Sub Registrar, Gaya 5. The O.S Office of District Registration Office Gaya ----------------------- 07/ 23.09.2011 Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned Standing Counsel No. 5 for the State. The petitioner is a deed writer in the office of District Registry, Gaya. He is aggrieved by the order dated 9.10.2009, passed by the respondent no. 2, Inspector General of Registration, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected and the order dated 29.6.2009 passed by the respondent no. 3, the District Registrar-cum-Collector, Gaya, whereby the license of the petitioner has been cancelled, inter alia, for violation of Rule 8 of the Bihar Deed Writer Licensing Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rule’), has been confirmed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is a holder of license since 2002 and has been getting his license renewed continuously after payment of the required license fee. It is contended that even in absence of any evidence to the contrary and the respondents themselves having renewed the license of the petitioner for the subsequent period 2008 and 2009, the District Registrar-cum-Collector, Gaya by the impugned order dated 2 29.6.2009 has been pleased to cancel the license of the petitioner for non-deposit of fees for renewal of license for the years 2006 and 2007 and thus having violated Rule 8 of the Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very fact that the license of the petitioner was renewed for the subsequent period i.e. 2008 and 2009, it is manifest that the renewal had been carried out after verification of the past deposit. In this regard learned counsel relies upon the Statutory Form-C as provided under the Rules, for renewal of the deed writer license. It is submitted that the entry at sl. no. 6 of the said form requires the petitioner to mention the date of last renewal and in absence whereof the renewal cannot take place. It is thus submitted that had the petitioner not obtained renewal for the previous period 2006 and 2007, he would not have been able to obtain the renewal for the subsequent periods i.e. 2008 and 2009. He, however, submits that as the chalan of deposit has since got displaced and thus not available he was not in a position to produce the same and for the said lapse, the petitioner cannot be punished with the impugned cancellation. Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the State opposing the prayer of the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was expected to maintain the documents in support of the renewal of his license and the very fact that the petitioner has failed to produce the chalan showing deposit of fee for renewal of license for the period 2006 and 2007 by itself is sufficient proof of the fact that the petitioner has not deposited fee for renewal for the said period 3 and has collusively obtained renewal for the subsequent period 2008 and 2009. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and upon consideration of the prescribed Form-C provided under the Rules for renewal of the deed writer license, it is manifest that until and unless the deed writer provides the date of last renewal of his license, his license cannot be renewed for the subsequent period. It is not in dispute that the license of the petitioner stood renewed for the subsequent period 2008 and 2009 and which position considered in the backdrop of the entry of the license renewal form, is sufficient proof of the deposit for the earlier period by the petitioner. The failure on the part of the petitioner to produce the chalan thereof can not be treated as a violation of Rule 8 of the Rules so as to entail a penalty of cancellation of license. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 9.10.2009 passed in Appeal Case No. 5 of 2009 as contained in Annexure-3 and the order dated 24.6.2009 passed by the District Registrar-cum-Collector, Gaya dated 29.6.2009 as contained in Annexure-2 cannot be sustained and are quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)