1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3632 OF 2009 Madhukar s/o Venkatrao Kulthe .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents Shri D.B.Pawar-Patrekar, Advocate for petitioner Shri S.K.Kadam, AGP for respondent-State CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 18th JUNE 2009 PER COURT : 1. After arguing for some time, Shri Pawar, learned Counsel for the petitioner very fairly states that the petitioner has submitted an application seeking renewal of his licence of document-Bond Writer on 18.12.2008 and the petitioner is not aware if his application has been decided by the respondents. However, it is stated before us that the petitioner has been served with an order dated 2.2.2009 stating therein that since the petitioner had attained the age of 60 years, his licence has been cancelled and since his licence has been cancelled, the petitioner is directed not to accompany the persons desirous of getting their documents registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar. Shri Pawar, 2 learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, in that background states that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty of submitting an application afresh seeking either renewal or fresh licence as document-Bond Writer as the Division Bench of this Court in “Chaitram Chindhuji Wasnik vs. State of Maharashtra and others”, 2007 (3) Mh.L.J.264 has held that the condition in the Circular dated 21.6.2001 issued by the Inspector-General and Stamp Controller, Maharashtra State holding the person who has crossed age of 60 years as disqualified and debarred from practising as a document-Bond Writer, is illegal and violative of Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution. The Division Bench had accordingly quashed and set aside the offending part of the Circular holding it to be bad and illegal. In the light of that Judgment, it is urged before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is entitled for renewal of his licence as a document-Bond Writer. 2. In the light of that, therefore, we allow the petitioner to withdraw this petition and grant liberty to the petitioner to submit an application afresh, either for renewal or issuance of fresh licence and direct the respondents to decide the said application within four weeks of its submission keeping in view the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in “Chaitram Chindhuji Wasnik vs. State of Maharashtra and others”, 2007 (3) Mh.L.J.264 holding the said Circular illegal by which the persons above the age of sixty were debarred or disqualified from practising as document-Bond Writer. The petitioner to submit an 3 application afresh within one week from today and the respondents to decide the said application, in accordance with law in the light of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Chaitram vs.State (supra) within four weeks of its submission. 3. Petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty and direction. ( R.K.DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) (vvr/3632.09wp)