ZILA DASTAVEJ LEKHAK ASSOCIATION BANDA AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1097 · Decided: 02-04-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

ZILA DASTAVEJ LEKHAK ASSOCIATION BANDA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
APRIL 2, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, .JJ.] 
B 
Registration Act, }908/U.P. Document Wliters' Licence Rules, 1977. 
Ss. 32 a11d 69/Rule 6(2)-Documellls----Presentatio11 of before Registra-
tion Officer--Docunient Writers-Regulation of tenns and conditio.ns C 
of-Docume11t Wiiters cannot challenge that part of the Rules which is 
unfavourable to them while at the same time respecting the favourable pwt 
thereof since they have no independe11t right de-hors the Rules-They ca11not 
challenge the power of In.1pector General of Registration i11 maki11g Rules 
regulating co11ditio11s of document w1ite1:< and co11ditio11s under which they 
become eligible to be document writers-Advocates stand as a class by D 
themselves--17iey do not need any fwther certificate from Lice11sing Authoiity 
under the Rules. 
Advocates Act, 1961 : 
S. 31J-Advocate-Entitleme11t to draft pleadings and documents and E 
present the same before aut/101ity concemed-A11 advocate gets the 1ight only 
by vi1tue of practice of professio11 as advocate. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 3403 of 1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.2.93 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M.W.P. No. Nil of 1993. 
Prashant Kumar, Pradeep Misra and Kavin Gulati for the Appel-
F 
~ 
G 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The petitioner, which is an Association representing the person who 
had licences to scribe documents under the U.P. Document Writers' 
Licence Rules, 1977 (for short, the 'Rules') challenged the vires of Rule 6 
1097 
1098 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996) 3 S.C.R. 
A (2) of the Rules which reads thus : 
"Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply where the writer of such 
document is one of the parties thereto or is a pleader engaged by 
the parties for drawing up the documents.'' 
B 
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Rule 
5 prescribes qualifications for granting licence. Ruic 4 prescribes the 
number of document writers. Rule 10 prescribes the charging of the fee 
and the period of licence prescribed under Rule 8. A conjoint reading of 
these rules envisages that the document writers are treated as a class. The 
C exclusion of the advocates from the purview of the provisions of the 
Registration Act is ultra vires the power of Inspector General of Registra-
tions under Section 69 (hhh) of the Registration Act, 1908 as amended by 
the State legislature (for short, the 'Act'). We find no force in the conten-
tion. Section 69 (hhh) provides thus : 
E 
"Providing for the grant of· licences to document writers, the 
suspension or revocation ·of such licences, the terms and .condi~. 
tions, subject to which and the authority by whom such licences 
shall be granted, suspended or revoked, and generally for all . 
purposes connected with the drafting of writing by such document 
writers of documents to be presented.for registration." 
A conjoint .reading of Section 32 of •the Act read with Section 69 
(hhh) ·of the Act would indicate that person who executes the document· 
either himself.or. through· an agent is the proper person to present the 
document before the rngistering authority, The persons eligible to write the 
F documents are reguhttc<l under the rule-making po,vcr under Sec:tion fi9 of 
the Act. The U.P. State Legislature had amended the section by incor-
porating sub-section (hhh) introducing the classification· of the persons 
eligible to draft the documents and for presentation thereof for registra-
tion. The Rules have been made in that behalf classifying the persons to 
be the document writers. The period of.licence, the power to suspend the 
G licence or revocation thereof, has been regulated thereunder. The members 
of the petitioner-Association, having become the licensees under the Rules, 
are bound thereby. Firstly, the petitioner-Association being consisting of 
the.members who obtained licence under the Rules, cannot challenge the 
Rules under which they came to operate. The very source under which they 
H came to operate either survives or perishes under the Rules. They cannot 
.. 
.• 
ZILADASTAVEJ LEKHAKASSN. BANDAv. STATE 
1099 
challenge that part of tl)c Rules which is unfavourable to them while at the A 
same time, respecting the favourable part thereof since they have· no 
independent right de hrm the Rules. They cannot challenge the power of 
the Inspector General of Registra

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.