IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1074 of 2009 BHAGWAN CHARAN PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh, Adv. For the State: Mr. Binod Kumar, AC to 5 ---------- 4. 10.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. The writ petitioners preferred C.W.J.C. No. 15710 of 2001 for quashing of departmental decision/instruction contained in letter No. 1355 dated 31.10.2001 issued by the Office of Inspector General of Registration and also for quashing of consequent letter dated 22.10.2001 issued from the Office of Collector/District Registrar by which the deed writers having experience of ten years as on the date of the enforcement of Bihar Registration Act, 1991 have also been held eligible for grant of license without taking a written test. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid instructions provide what is already provided in Section 68-B of Registration Act, 1908. This provision was introduced through State Amendment i.e. Bihar Registration Act, 1991. The only point in favour of the appellant/writ petitioners is a provision in Rule-7(2) according to which exemption from appearing in the written test may be granted by the licensing authorities to any person who is in the profession of deed writing for the last 10 years on the date coming into force of these Rules. The learned Writ Court has rightly held that the aforesaid - 2 - provision in the Rule is inconsistent with the statutory provision in the Act and hence the Inspector General of Registration had no power to make such a Rule under Section 69 of the Registration Act. A similar view has been taken by a Single Judge of this Court in an earlier judgment which has been annexed as Annexure-D to the counter affidavit filed in the writ case. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Rule making authority, Inspector General of Registration has rightly realized his mistake in framing Rules of 1996 and has directed the concerned authorities to act as per provision in the Act. We find no error in the impugned judgment and order of the Writ Court. The appeal is dismissed as it is without merits. Our attention was drawn to a judgment of a learned Single Judge reported in 2007(4) PLJR 203. That judgment was passed without considering the earlier judgment of the Single Judge contained in Annexure-D and without discussing the relevant provision in the Act and the Rules. In that judgment, it is mentioned that even similarly situated persons will not be entitled to claim benefit of that judgment as it was rendered in the peculiar facts of that case. We are of the view that the said judgment cannot be treated as a precedent. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (C.M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-