WP 1073/08 1 Judgment IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition no. 1073 of 2008 Satyawan s/o Pundlikrao Bhujade, Age 59 years, Occupation-Document/ Bond Writer, R/o at Post Tah : Warora, Distt:Chandrapur. PETITIONER .....VERSUS..... 1. State of Maharashtra, through Inspector-General, Stamp Controller, Pune. 2. Joint District Registrar, Chandrapur. 3. Sub-Registrar, At Post Tah: Warora, Distt:Chandrapur. RESPONDENTS Mr. S.A. Prakash & Mr. Sachin Jaiswal, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. A.M. Deshpande, Assistant Govt. Pleader for the respondents. CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE : MARCH 7, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per D. D. Sinha, J) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is finally heard at the stage of admission with the consent of counsel of the parties. WP 1073/08 2 Judgment 2. In the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the validity of the part of the circular dated 21.06.2001, issued by the Inspector General and Stamp Controller, Maharashtra State, Pune, which relates to the outer age limit i.e. 60 years, applicable to the Document Writer and after attaining the said limit, the Document Writer's license stands cancelled. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that this aspect is no more res integra and the same is concluded in the decision reported in 2007(3) Mh.L.J. 264 (Chaitram Chindhuji Wasnik Versus State of Maharashtra and others), by which, the Clause 8 of the impugned Circular dated 21.06.2001 has been declared invalid in law and has been quashed, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to hold the license beyond the period of 60 years, if he is otherwise eligible for renewal etc. 4. Mr. A.M. Deshpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, does not dispute the factual and legal aspect of the matter. WP 1073/08 3 Judgment 5. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, particularly in view of the decision of this Court reported in 2007(3) Mh.L.J. 264, it is not in dispute that the Clause 8 of the impugned Circular dated 21.06.2001, which relates to the outer age limit, has been held to be invalid in law. In the circumstances, no fresh direction/ declaration in this regard is necessary. The learned Assistant Government Pleader states that the license of the petitioner has been renewed up to 05.03.2008 and after that, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible and if there is no legal impediment in doing so, appropriate steps would be taken, provided the petitioner applies for the renewal of license as per the procedure applicable in law. 6. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE APTE