IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1489 of 2002 1. Subhash Dubey, son of late Pujan Dubey, resident of village Barhiyan, P.O. & P.S. barauli, District Gopalganj. 2. Sampat Pandit, son of Khuban Pandit, resident of Village Jalpurba, P.O. Moghal, Biraicha, P.S. Barauli, District Gopalganj. 3. Sudhir Kumar, son of Brajendra Kishore Prasad, resident of village and P.O. Bansohi, P.S. Masrak, District Gopalganj. 4. Shailendra Prasad, son of Tripurari Prasad, resident of Village Golamath, P.O. Bhagawanpur, P.S. Thabe, District Gopalganj. 5. Md. Habib, son of Late Md. Tarif, resident of Village Chitauli, P.O. Parsurampur, P.S. Manjhagarh, District Gopalganj. ----------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through Secretary, Registration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Patna. 3. Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. District Registrar-cum-District Magistrate, Gopalganj. 5. District Sub Registrar, Gopalganj. ---------- Respondents With CWJC No.1685 of 2002 1. Shashikant Singh, son of Sri Rameshwar Singh, Resident of Village Chainpatti, P.O., P.S. & District Gopalganj. 2. Om Prakash, son of Baban Prasad, Resident of Village, P.O. and P.S. Yadavpur, District Gopalganj. 3. Suresh Singh, son of Ramashray Singh, resident of Village Chainpatti, P.O., P.S. and District Gopalganj. 4. Srikant Singh, son of Ramashankar Singh, Resident of Village Chainpatti, P.O., P.S. and District Gopalganj. 5. Pradeep Kumar, son of Shatrajeet Prasad, Resident of Village Loharpatti, P.O. Jalalpur, P.S. Kuchaipur, District Gopalganj. 6. Bijay Kumar Singh, son of Gopal Singh, Village Chainpatti, P.O., P.S. and District Gopalganj. 7. Upendra Prasad, Son of Late Yugeshwar Prasad, Resident of Village Karkhuan, P.O. Vishnu Sugar Mills, Harkhuan, P.S. and District Gopalganj. 8. Sheo Charan Sah, son of late Jitan Sah, Resident of Village Bhitbherwan, P.O., P.S. and District Gopalganj. ------ Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through Secretary, Registration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Patna. 3. Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. District Registrar-cum-District Magistrate, Gopalganj. 2 5. District Sub Registrar, Gopalganj. ---------- Respondents With CWJC No.1689 of 2002 1. Shri Janardan Prasad, son of late Harishankar Prasad, Resident of Village Harpur, Wazid, P.S. Thawe, District Gopalganj. 2. Sri Nand Kishore Prasad, son of Late Jagarnath Prasad, Resident of Village Bantai, P.O. Khajuri, P.S. Kuchai Kot, District Gopalganj. 3. Sri Anil Prasad, son of late Shivnandan Prasad, Resident of village Lahladpur, P.O. Udant Rai Ke Bangra, P.S. Manjhagarh, District Gopalganj. 4. Sri Ratikant Prasad, son of late Nageshwar Prasad, resident of Village Rupanchhap, Simaria, P.O. & P.S. Barauli, District Gopalganj. 5. Sri Sheonath Shukla, son of late Raj Bali Shukla, resident of Village Naurahwanshukul, P.O. Naurahwanshukul, P.S. Gopalpur, District Gopalganj. 6. Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, son of Rajendra Prasad, resident of Village Hojiapur, P.O. & P.S. Gopalganj, District Gopalganj. 7. Ramnath Prasad Yadav, son of Jairam Prasad Yadav, resident of Village Bridaban, P.S. Uchkagaon, District Gopalganj. -------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through Secretary, Registration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Patna. 3. Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. District Registrar-cum-District Magistrate, Gopalganj. 5. District Sub Registrar, Gopalganj. -------- Respondents With CWJC No.1774 of 2002 1. Kanhaiya Prasad, son of Kamla Prasad, resident of Village Mahaicha, P.S. Mirganj, District Gopalganj. 2. Bacha Prasad, son of Surya Prasad, Resident of Village Madhopur, P.S. Mirganj, District Gopalganj. 3. Sambhunath Prasad, son of Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Resident of Village Sarwe Khas, P.S. Uchkagaon, District Gopalganj. 4. Baristar Sah, son of Rasul Sah, resident of Village Kaparpura, P.S. Uchkagaon, District Gopalganj. 5. Madan Prasad, son of Sugamber Prasad, Resident of village Maksudpur, P.S. Uchkagaon, District Gopalganj. 6. Krishna Kumar Srivastava, son of Sheo Shankar Prasad, resident of Village Kanha Gopi, P.S. Mirganj, District Gopalganj. 7. dhananjay Prasad, son of Brij Bihari Prasad, resident of Village Piprakhas, P.S. Mirganj, District Gopalganj. 3 8. Sunil Kumar Srivastava, son of Madan Prasad, resident of Village Baleshra, P.S. Uchkagaon, District Gopalganj. 9. Akhilesh Kumar Singh, son of Babban Singh, resident of Village Parrauna, P.S. Bhore, District Gopalganj. 10. Bhagwan Prasad, son of Gaya Prasad, Village Vishunpura, P.S. Mirganj, District Gopalganj. ------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through Secretary, Registration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Patna. 3. Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. District Registrar-cum-District Magistrate, Gopalganj. 5. District Sub Registrar, Gopalganj. ------------ Respondents With CWJC No.1833 of 2002 1. Vinod Kumar, son of Umanath Prasad, resident of Village Brindaban, P.S. Uchkagaon, District Gopalganj. 2. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, son of Rajendra Prasad, Village Madhopur, P.S. Mirganj, District Gopalganj. 3. Nagendra Rai, son of Bhola Rai, resident of Pachkhera, P.S. Mirganj, District Gopalganj. 4. Ram Snehi Prasad Manjhi, son of Chandu Manjhi, resident of Village Mishra Bandhwara, P.S. Bijaypur, District Gopalganj. 5. Manan Prasad Srivastava, son of Thakur Prasad, resident of Village Repura, P.S. Mirganj, District Gopalganj. 6. Bhola Rai, son of Sri Lakhan Rai, resident of Village Madhopur, P.S. (Phoolwaria) Mirganj, District Gopalganj. 7. Yogendra Prasad, son of Bindeshwwari Prasad, resident of Village Jigna Jagarnath, P.S. Mirganj, District Gopalganj. 8. Dileep Singh, son of Yamuna Singh, Village Manichhapar, P.S. Mirganj, District Gopalganj. 9. Dinanath Yadav, son of late Rang Bahadur Yadav, Village Bhagirithi Tola Laxmipur, P.S. Mirganj, District Gopalganj. 10. Shashi Bhushan Prasad, son of Kuldeep Prasad, Village Tulsia Bazar, P.S. Uchkagaon, District Gopalganj. --------- Respondents Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through Secretary, Registration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Patna. 3. Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. District Registrar-cum-District Magistrate, Gopalganj. 5. District Sub Registrar, Gopalganj. ------------ Respondents ----------- 4 7 01.12.2010 Having heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State in these five writ applications as with regard to the following prayer:- “1. That this application is being filed for grant of relief by issuing appropriate writ directing and commanding the respondents to issue permanent licence to the petitioners forthwith and allow the petitioners to carry on the profession of deed writing/ subscribing and it is further directed that the documents written and prepared by the petitioners be accepted for registration as before and for grant of ad interim relief that the petitioners be allowed to carry on the profession of deed writing during the pendency of the writ application and for grant of such other relief or reliefs which the petitioners be found entitled to.” this Court would find that the case of the petitioners in the writ application is that since all of them were carrying out the work of Deed Writer for a period of ten years or more and, in fact, were given provisional licence for the period up to 31.12.1991 (Annexure-A), they ought to have been given 5 permanent licence as they had also passed the necessary examination prescribed by the Rules. In paragraph no.9 of the writ application, the case of the petitioners is as follows:- “9. That in the year, 1991, the District Registrar, District Sub Registrar, Gopalganj had issued general notice for holding of written examination for grant of licence to the deed writers and in response to the notice, the petitioners had applied and they were allowed to appear at the examination. The examination was conducted by the District Registrar and District Sub Registrar in which the petitioners had appeared and subsequently result was published in which the petitioners were declared successful.” In fact, there is no clear averment of the petitioners with regard to their earlier working in the writ application that the petitioners were working as a Deed Writer and the only statement made to this effect is in paragraph no.18, which also reads as follows:- “18. That the petitioners have been carrying on the profession and job of deed writing from the early 6 eightees and they have also passed out the examination, held for the purpose by the registering authorities at Gopalganj and the petitioners were issued licence, although the word provisional was wrongly mentioned therein and the petitioners have been carrying on the profession of deed writing under the same and unfortunately the respondents have stopped accepting the documents written by the petitioners since 1.1.2002 and the petitioners have just been thrown out of job and profession for no fault of theirs.” (underlining for emphasis) In fact, from the whole tenor of the writ applications, it would appear that the petitioners had insisted for being granted licence of Deed Writer only on the basis of becoming successful in the Deed Writer Examination. The respondents, however, by filing the counter affidavit, have clarified this aspect by taking a categorical stand in paragraph no.13, which in no uncertain terms denies the petitioners’ experience of ten years as also the fact of their appearing in the examination. Paragraph no.13 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:- 7 “13. That reply paragraph-16 is that since the petitioners were not found eligible either on experience basis (as they have rendered less than 10 years) or examination basis as the petitioners have failed in the examination conducted on 28.12.2001 in the light of Deed Writer Licensing Rules 1996. The results were published on 29.12.2001.” The respondents, in fact, have not left the matter untouched even with regard to the vague statement made in paragraph no.18 of the writ application and they have taken a categorical stand that the petitioners came into profession after the year 1981 and to that extent, the statement contained in paragraph no. 15 of the counter affidavit also needs to be extracted, which reads as follows:- “15. That reply to paragraph-18 is that the submissions made by the petitions in this para are not fully correct. They come into the profession after 1981. They did not pass the examination held for this purpose and in the license issued to them in the year 1991, the word provisional was not wrongly mentioned. Since the rules for carrying out the purpose for Section 68B were not framed, the 8 license was only provisionally issued only for a year and was never renewed. It was clearly mentioned on the license under condition “A” that the licensee shall abide by the rules when framed relating to the licensing of document writers.” It has to be also taken into account that the petitioners have filed rejoinder affidavit, wherein, both the paragraph nos. 12 & 13 has been answered in the following terms:- “12. That the statement made in paragraph no.13 of the counter affidavit under reply are wrong. All the petitioners had passed the examination and they are issued provisional licence for writing deed. They were asked to deposit Rs. 50/- towards fee for issue of permanent licence which the petitioners had complied with but the respondents have betrayed and they sat over the matter leading to the filing of the instant writ application. Contrary statement in paragraph no.13 of the counter affidavit under reply is incorrect. Annexure-B is a fabricated and manipulated document. The manipulation in Annexure-B is apparent from the fact that at the bottom of first sheet containing names etc. 7 officers have put 9 their initial whereas in the second sheet at the bottom only two persons are said to have put their initial. This clearly shows the manipulation in the matter and Annexure-B series are concocted and unreliable. At the top of first sheet (page 11 of the counter affidavit) containing names it is mentioned that it is the result of the deed writer of 2001. Similar is the writing at the top of sheet No.2 (page-12 of counter affidavit). This shows that the sheets contained name of successful candidates. Annexure-B series are fake and unintelligible and no head or tail can be made out of it. It is not clear as to for how many marks the examination was held for and what was the fetched mark etc. and Annexure-B series are the concocted and manipulated document brought into existence by the respondents to suit their purpose. Contrary statement are not correct. From reading of paragraph no.13 of the counter affidavit and paragraph no.12 of the rejoinder affidavit, this much becomes clear that though the petitioners have asserted with regard to the fact of appearing in the examination but they have not denied the fact that they did not possesses ten years 10 experience as asserted in the counter affidavit. Not only that, their complete omission to answer the statement mentioned in paragraph no.15 asserting that they had not been in profession in the year 1991 would leave nothing for speculation that at least on the day provisional licence was given to them in terms of Annexure-A, they had not completed ten years of profession. If that be the position, the petitioners had rightly abandoned the issue of their automatic absorption on completion of ten years as would be manifest from the earlier order of this Court dated 15.4.2009, which for the sake of brevity and clarity, is also quoted hereinbelow:- “Having heard counsel for the parties at some length this Court finds that the only issue remains to be answered in the light of the pleadings on records is as to whether petitioners had ever passed the examination of deed writer. Assertion of the petitioners is that they had appeared in 1991 examination and had passed the same. On the other hand, respondents in their counter affidavit have asserted that they have not passed the examination. In that view of the matter, onus to prove this fact will lie on the 11 petitioners as such they must produce any document/result of the examination to show that they had passed the examination. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners prays for three weeks time to file supplementary affidavit enclosing the aforementioned document in proof of passing the examination by the petitioners. At the same time, the respondents also must find out from their records as to whether in the year 1991 any examination was held and if such examination was held whether petitioners had appeared therein and if the petitioners had appeared what was their result in such examination. In the event the respondents have also traced out certain records they may be brought on record by filing a supplementary counter affidavit. Put up this case after three weeks as a tied up matter.” Pursuant, to the aforementioned order, an affidavit has been filed by the petitioners claiming that when they wanted to get the document, in question, about their appearance in the examination under Right to Information Act, an answer was given by the authority that these documents are no longer available. On this basis, Mr. Prasad proceeds that an adverse inference should be drawn 12 against the petitioners for not producing the document or giving copy of the document. In the opinion of this Court, an examination held in the year 1991 and its answer book or other information was not supposed to be preserved for a period of 18 to 20 years and, therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn only because the respondents did not give inkling to the trace of non-existing documents. The petitioners themselves have accepted before this Court in their pleading by not denying the categorical statement in the counter affidavit as with regard to their non-completion of ten years service which would rule out the possibility of being eligible for grant of license. In that view of the matter, this Court will have little option but to proceed on the basis that the petitioners had never appeared in the examination and the plea to that effect taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit is correct. Merely because a provisional licence in the period when the Rules were to be framed was issued for a period of nine months in the 13 year 1991, would not mean that the petitioners had already completed a period of ten years specially, when there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had joined the profession in the year 1981 or earlier. In fact, the expression early ‘80s’ used by them in paragraph no. 18 of the writ application and underlined by this court can be anywhere in the year 1980-1984 and, therefore, it would be difficult for this Court to proceed on an assumption that the petitioners had completed ten years of professional experience on the appointed day. In any event such a disputed fact cannot be decided under writ jurisdiction. That being so, if the petitioners did not fulfil the requirement under the statutory provision, there would be no question of their being allowed to continue with the work of Deed Writer. Thus for the reasons mentioned above all these writ applications are devoid of any merit. They are, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)