ZILA DASTAVEJ LEKHAK ASSOCIATION BANDA AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. APRIL 2, 1996 [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, .JJ.] 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- 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 [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.''
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 :
"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
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 Registration in making the Rules regulating conditions of the document writers and .the conditions. under which they become eligible to be document writers.
The question then is : whether the advocates would be required to obtain licence under the Rules to become documents writers. An advocate by virtue of his sanad having been granted by the appropriate Bar Council.. under the Advocates Act, 1961 is entitled to draft the pleadings and appear and practise before the courts and tribunals or persons legally autl)orised C to take evidence under Section 30 unless he is otherwise excluded. As a part of practice, advocates are entitled to draft· the documents on behalf of the parties and produce them before registering officer if he undertakes such exercise. As a consequence, Rule 6(2) seeks to. exclude from the purview of Rules the party who himself presents the.document for registra- tion or the advocate who drafts the document and presents the same, if D needed by the party, for registration. Under these circumstances, advocates stand as a class by themselves apart form the document writers governed by the Rules. An advocate does not need any further certificate from the Licensing Authority under the Rules to have the. power to draft the document and if need be, to present it at. his option before registering E officer for registration of the instrument.. He gets his right only by virtue of practice of ·profession as advocate. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner-Association that its members are excluded from-the purview of Rule 6(2) is devoid of substance.
The special leave pelilion is accordingly dis~isse<l. R.P. S.L.P. dismissed.