Dismissed

Kusum Lal Kamat and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC28 Mar 2014CWJC/40/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition by deed writers challenging the licensing requirement. The court held the application premature as the petitioners had not first approached the licensing authority, directing them to file an application within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed in limine; direction to file application for license and consider it within six weeks.

Kusum Lal Kamat and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.40 of 2013

¶2

====================================================== 1. Kusum Lal Kamat Son Of Late Amrit Kamat Resident Of Village + Post Office - Dighiya, Police Station - Nirmali, District - Supaul 2. Vilakshan Yadav Son Of Sri Bhogi Lal Yadav Resident Of Village + Post Office - Sarauga Bela, Police Station - Marauna, District - Supaul .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, Through The Secretary - Cum - Inspector General Of Registration, Bihar, Patna 2. The Collector - Cum - District Magistrate, Supaul 3. The District Registrar, Supaul, District - Supaul 4. The Sub-Registrar, Nirmali, District - Supaul .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra Mr. Manish Kumar No 13 Mr. Rohit Kumar For the State Mr. Manish Kumar, A.C. to G.P.28 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 7 28-03-2014 Heard Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The two petitioners herein claim to be engaged in the profession of deed writing since long. They seek a direction commanding the respondents to allow them to continue to work of deed writing. By virtue of amendment brought in the Registration Act (for short „the Act‟), section 60(A) (B) were inserted in 1991 which obligate any such person engaged in the profession to apply for and receive a licence for deed writing. The petitioners

¶3

Patna High Court CWJC No.40 of 2013 (7) dt.28-03-2014

¶4

2 / 4

¶5

have in particular relied on sub sections 1 and 2 of section 68 –B of the Act which read thus:-

¶6

“68-B (1) The Registrar of District or any other Officer authorized by him in this behalf may grant a licence, to be valid in one subdistrict or one district in the prescribed form to document-writer or apprentice to document writer on and application made ink this behalf on such term and conditions as may be prescribed by the Inspector General of Registration in this behalf after conducting a written test as may be prescribed.

¶7

(2) A licence may be granted to any person who has been in the profession of the documentwriter for at least ten years prior to the date of the Registration(Bihar Amendment) Ordinance, 1991 came into force, without requiring him to appear in the written test referred to in sub-section (i), if the Registrar of a District or any other officer authorized by him in this behalf is satisfied that he is otherwise fit to take the profession of a document-writer;”

¶8

The contention of the petitioners is that those provisions were actually made effective/functional after coming into force of the Bihar Deed Writers‟ Licensing Rules, 1996 w.e.f. 13^th of March, 1997. According to the petitioners they are qualified to be

¶9

Patna High Court CWJC No.40 of 2013 (7) dt.28-03-2014

¶10

3 / 4

¶11

granted license without appearing at the examination in view of the fact that the State defaulted in giving full effect to the provision contained in section 68-B of the Act inasmuch as the Rules for enforcement thereof were formulated in 1997. In this regard he relies on an order dated 10.08.2007 passed by this Court in CWJC No. 1172 of 2003 copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure-3. By filing supplementary affidavit it has been stated that the petitioners are engaged in the profession of deed writing at least sine 1985-86.

¶12

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the present application before this Court is premature. Relying on Rule 7(2) of the Rules it is contended that the petitioners have to make an application for issuance of a licence and only on refusal thereof they may seek appropriate remedy either before this Court or in accordance with the provisions contained in the Rules.

¶13

Mr. Mishra after going through the pleadings made in the writ application fairly stated that no such application was filed by the petitioners before appropriate authority

¶14

Taking into account the aforesaid facts, this Court disposes of this application by the following order:-

¶15

Let the petitioners file appropriate application(s) before

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.40 of 2013 (7) dt.28-03-2014

¶17

4 / 4

¶18

the competent/appropriate authority of the respondent State seeking issuance of licence authorizing them to continue the deed writing as they were doing from before within four weeks whereafter the appropriate/competent authority shall consider the same in the light of the relevant rule-provision(s) as also the order passed by this Court in CWJC No. 1172 of 2003 and pass appropriate order as quickly as possible preferably within six weeks therefrom.

¶19

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶20

HR/-

Kusum Lal Kamat and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kusum Lal Kamat and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Janam Sharma Vs The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Sah Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Prem Kumar Sinha and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ramesh Chand Gupta Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Bhola Thakur Vs Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors.

Bachaspati Narayan Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.