IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2587 of 2004 1. SAGEER ALAM Son of Md. Sadique, resident of village Sri Rampur Kobhua P.S. Manjha District-Gopalganj. 2. Shambhu Nath Singh son of Rudal Singh, resident of Village-Ekderwan P.S.-Gopalganj, 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 ----------- 2. 24.02.2011 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reliefs, delineated in paragraph-1 of the petition, which are quoted hereinbelow:- (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 be 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”. 3. The grievances of the petitioners are 2 that though they were having experience of more than 10 years of deed writing prior to coming into force of Section 68-A and 68-B, inserted by way of amendment through Registration Bihar Amendment Act, 1991 in the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), yet they have been debarred by the respondent District Sub-Registrar, Gopalganj from carrying on the profession of deed writing with effect from the year 2002. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that by virtue of Section 68-B (2) of the Act person having ten years of experience was not required to take any examination and if the Registrar of the district was otherwise satisfied, then he was obliged to issue licence to such person for deed writing. It is further submitted that impugned action of the respondent authorities is wholly unjustified and contrary to the judicial pronouncement of this Court in the case of Arjun Prasad & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors, reported in 2007 (4) PLJR 203. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has placed reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3. In his submission in the given facts of the case, the petitioners are not 3 entitled to get any relief from this Court. 6. After having heard the parties at length, this Court is of the considered opinion that whether the petitioners were having ten years of experience of deed writing prior to insertion of Section 68-A and 68-B in the Act is a pure question of fact and that has to be adjudicated by the District Registrar. The petitioners have not challenged any particular order in the present proceeding and have directly approached this Court by filing the present petition. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners must raise their claim before respondent District Registrar at the first instance, who will be obliged to decide the same in accordance with law and as per judicial pronouncement made by this Court. 7. The petitioners are hereby directed to file a detailed representation raising their claims before respondent District Registrar-cum-District Magistrate, Gopalganj within a period of four weeks from today along with a certified copy of the present order. If such a representation is filed by the petitioners within the time prescribed, then respondent District Registrar shall be obliged to consider the case of the petitioners and shall further 4 be obliged to decide the same in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation. 8. It is also made clear that if the petitioners do not file such representation within the time prescribed, then it shall be construed that the present writ petition has finally been rejected by this Court. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Anand Kr. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)