IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6838 of 2008 1. MD.ZAKIR HUSSAIN, SON OF LATE MD. ABDUS SALAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHARHARA HAZI TOLA GOPALGANJ, P.O. GANPATGANJ, PS RAGHOPUR, DISTRICT SUPAUL 2. SHRI DEVENDRA KUMAR VERMA, SON OF LATE ASARFILAL DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAKALA SITARAM, P.O. JIYARAM RAGHOPUR, PS RAGHOPUR, DISTRICT SUPAUL 3. BONID PRASAD DAS, SON OF LATE SHIV NARAYAN LAL DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DUMARI, P.O. ACHALPUR, PS RAGHOPUR, DISTRICT SUPAUL 4. CHANDRA KISHORE DAS, SON OF LATE VISHESWAR LAL DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SITARAM CHAKALA, P.O. JIYARAM RAGHOPUR, PS RAGHOPUR, DISTRICT SUPAUL …………………………………………………………………………..PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY –CUM- INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COLLECTOR –CUM- DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SUPAUL 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, SUPAUL 4. THE DISTRICT ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR, SUPAUL 5. THE SUB-REGISTRAR, GANPATGANJ, DISTRICT SUPAUL …………………………………………………………………………RESPONDENTS ----------- 4 14.11.2011 These four petitioners have come to this Court with a prayer that they should be permitted to continue to work as deed writers as they have worked as deed writers since more than ten years. Petitioner no. 1 Md. Zakir Hussain has been working as deed writer since 31.7.1989, petitioner no. 2 Devendra Kumar Verma has been working as deed writer since 17.9.1991, Binod Prasad Das has been working as deed writer since 25.3.1984 and Chandra Kishore Das has been working as deed writer since 10.4.1987. The State Government by an Ordinance issued in March, 1991 amended Section 68 of the Registration 2 Act (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). The amendment 68-A prohibits unlicensed persons from being in the vocation of deed writers. Section 68B provides for grant of license to deed writers. Section 68-B(2) provides that a person in a vocation for the ten years was not required to appear in the written test for grant of such license. By Section 69 (bb) as amended by the State of Bihar provided for framing of rules for grant of license of the Deed Writers but suspension and cancellation of license, the terms and conditions for grant of license and generally for other purposes connected for writing of documents to be presented for registration. The Ordinance which is replaced by Bihar Act 6 of 1991 promulgated on 8.9.1991. However, no rules were framed as required under Section 69(bb) till the promulgation of the license rules by notification dated 13.3.1997. Sub rule 2 of Rule 7 provides that the licensing authority may grant a license to any person who is in the profession for the last ten years on the date of coming into force of these rules, without requiring him/her to appear in the test examination. In the district of Supaul the examinations were not held till 2003. In the mean time, all the petitioners except petitioner no. 2 had completed ten years in the profession of deed writer. 3 Counsel for the petitioner relies on Annexure-2 which is the order of this Court passed in CWJC No. 1172 of 2003, disposed of on 10.8.2007. This Court will refer to certain paragraphs of the order which would be necessary to decide this issue. The Court after taking into consideration the promulgation and amendments made in the Act finally held as follows: “Having made amendment in the Registration Act in its applicability to Bihar, the respondents are themselves to be blamed for not having promulgated the necessary Rules to give effect to the amended provisions of the Act under Sections 68-A and 68-B. In absence of the necessary Rules to be framed under Section 69(bb), statute book and could not be implemented. Likewise having framed Rules in 1997 it was the respondents themselves who did not hold the necessary examination till the year 2000. The petitioners cannot be faulted for the same, and at the same time be denied the right to practice their vocation for the reasons attributable to the respondents alone. Had the respondents held the examination in time, the petitioners may have competed in the same to continue with their vocation. That the petitioners have acquired experience over the years cannot be lost sight of by the Court. They will certainly 4 be in a better position to draw documents and deeds by dint of their experience than those who may qualify in examination now and may be fresh to the vocation.” Therefore, this Court in fact had held that the petitioners of CWJC No. 1172 of 2003 although had not completed ten years as deed writers did so by virtue of the fact that the examinations were held within time, rather they took place in the year 2000 for the district where the petitioners were working as Deed Writers. In the present case on perusal of the chart provided by the petitioners at page 5 of the writ application, it would prima facie appear that petitioner nos. 3 and 4 would not face difficulty in view of the fact that they were supposedly working as deed writers since 25.3.1984 and 10.4.1987 i.e. they had completed ten years in the year 1997. Petitioner no. 3 would not face a problem as he has completed ten years on the date of promulgation of the rules which is 13th of March, 1997. Petitioner no. 4 was short of the period by one month whereas petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have completed ten years at the time when the State Government took the decision to hold examinations for deed writers. It is, therefore, submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 4 would come within the purview of the order of this Court quoted 5 above dated 10.8.2007. Counsel for the State on the other hand refers to the last paragraph of the order in which it is said that the benefit is being confined to the petitioners who alone have come before this Court and has specifically been mentioned that this benefit would not be applicable to those who are similarly situated and chose not to approach this Court. The attention of the Court has also been drawn to Annexure-D an order by this Court reported in 2004(2) PLJR 829. In this case the Court has held that after the promulgation of the amendment it is essential that the license should be granted after conducting a written test. “However, as an exception the rules had provided that license should be granted to any person without appearing in the test who has been in the process of document writing or at least ten years prior to the date of registration the Ordinance 1991 coming into force.” Thus, where the law specifically provides for counting of experience from a particular date the experience had to be counted on that date and no other date. The learned single Judge has granted relief by way of exception, to the petitioners of CWJC No. 1172 of 2003 and as such, this Court cannot grant the benefit to these petitioners as the law does not permit the Court to 6 do so. There are two more reasons for rejection of the petitioners‟ contention by this Court. Firstly, the petitioners in the present case, appeared for the examination for Deed Writers which was held in the district concerned, sometime between the years 2000-03. The petitioners appeared in the said examination in the hope that they would succeed, unfortunately for them, they failed in the said examination. As such, they are estopped from claiming the relief as provided under the rules. The other reason is that after the examination was held and the petitioners failed, probably in the year 2001-02, they kept mum over the matter and did not approach the Court for at least five years. An oral explanation for the delay has been given that in fact they continued to work as Deed Writers until they were specifically stopped from doing so. The delay in approaching this Court is also a good reason for dismissing the writ application. However, on considering the entire facts of the case, this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioners. This writ application is accordingly dismissed. Sanjay/Anand (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)