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

 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.
                                                                               F
     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-
~                                                                              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 :

            "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."
E
         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 Registration in making the Rules regulating
     conditions of the document writers and .the conditions. under which they
     become eligible to be document writers.
                                                                                        B
           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.                       F
     R.P.                                                           S.L.P. dismissed.