IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11647 of 2010 1. Shah Nawaj Ahmad S/O Late Noor Mohammad R/O Mohalla- Moriyaghat, P.S.- Kotwali, Distt.- Gaya 2. Md. Mustaque Alam S/O Late Noor Mohammad R/O Vill.- Fatehpur, P.S.- Belaganj, Distt.- Gaya Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner And Secretary Human Resources Development, Government Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 3. The District Registrar-Cum-Collector, Gaya 4. The District Registrar, Sadar, Registry Office, Gaya ---------------------- 05. 03.11.2011 Heard Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Kumar Malendu, assisting counsel to G.P. 3 on behalf of the State. The petitioners who are licensees under the Bihar Deed Writers Licensing Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’), had filed the writ petition being aggrieved by the action of the respondent District Registrar-cum-Collector, Gaya in not passing appropriate orders in the light of the directions issued by the appellate authority under the Rules, namely, the Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Patna as contained in the order dated 9.10.2009 passed in Appeal Case No. 2 of 2009 placed at Annexure- 7 to the writ petition. During the pendency of the proceedings, the District Registrar cum Collector, Gaya has passed final orders canceling the 2 licence of the petitioners and which has been communicated to the petitioners by the District Sub Registrar vide Memo No. 806 dated 26.10.2010 placed at Annexure-10 of the I.A. No. 9637 of 2010 filed for amendment of the prayer in the light of the subsequent development. The prayer is allowed and the petitioners are permitted to challenge the order as contained in Annexure-10, in the present proceedings. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case in brief is that the license of the petitioners granted under the Rules was cancelled by the District Registrar as communicated under the orders of the District Sub Registrar, Gaya as contained in Memo No. 381 dated 28.3.2009, inter alia, on grounds of non deposit of license renewal fee within the prescribed period. The name of the petitioners appears at serial no. 11 and 12 of the said order placed at Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The petitioners being aggrieved filed a statutory appeal giving rise to Appeal Case No. 2 of 2009 and which was heard and allowed by the appellate authority being the Inspector General of Registration under order dated 9.10.2009 placed at Annexure-7. The appellate authority upon consideration of the contention and appreciation of the facts and the circumstances that the petitioners were not provided with sufficient opportunity to defend their respective cases, was pleased to remit the matter to the District Registrar-cum-Collector, Gaya for passing a fresh order after affording them reasonable opportunity to defend their cases. 3 It is a matter of record that following the order passed by the appellate authority, the petitioners upon receipt of notice, responded thereto by filing their respective show causes enclosing relevant chalans showing deposit of renewal fee. As no order was forthcoming hence the present writ petition was filed seeking appropriate relief. While the matter was pending consideration an order was passed by the District Registrar-cum-Collector, Gaya communicated vide Memo No. 806 dated 26.10.2010 of the District Sub Registrar, whereby the District Registrar-cum-Collector in purported exercise of power vested under Rule 13(1)(b) of the Rules was pleased to cancel the license of the petitioners. The only ground assigned for passing the impugned order is non deposit of license fee for the period 2008 within the time prescribed under Rule 8 of the Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner while admitting the fact that the renewal fee for the period 2008 had been deposited belatedly on 5.4.2010, submits that the respondents having accepted the license renewal fee for the preceding period 2007 and the succeeding period 2009 which were deposited within time and having accepted the license fee for the period 2008 albeit belatedly, they cannot revert back and refuse to renew the license of the petitioners and order for its cancellation, inter alia, on grounds of belated deposit of license fee for the middle period, 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his 4 contention has relied upon a judicial pronouncement of this Court rendered in a writ petition arising from C.W.J.C. No. 16716 of 2009 dated 20.4.2010. A Bench of this Court considering identical situation was pleased to allow the writ petition. I find no reason to differ from the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition arising from C.W.J.C. No. 16716 of 2009 for the reason that the license fee of the petitioners herein has also been accepted by the respondent authorities for the period 2007 and 2009, which admittedly was deposited within the prescribed time. The respondents having accepted the license renewal fee for the following period 2009 which was deposited within prescribed period, the District Registrar, Gaya had clearly acted in an arbitrary manner in cancelling the license of the petitioners, inter alia, on grounds of belated deposit of the renewal fee for the preceding year 2008. For the reason aforesaid and in view of the judicial pronouncement rendered in C.W.J.C. No. 16716 of 2009 (Surendra Kumar Singh @ Surendra Kumar Sinha Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.), the writ petition is allowed. The order as contained in Annexure-10 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to proceed accordingly. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)