Bombay High Court Quashes Age Limit for Document Writers in Maharashtra — Circular Barring Practice Beyond 60 Years Held Unconstitutional. Court rules that the Registration Act, 1908 and Maharashtra Registration Manual contain no provision for age-based disqualification, and the circular violates Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-23 22:47:56

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Chaitram Chindhuji Wasnik, a document writer by profession, had been granted a licence to practice as a document writer in 1982 for the area of Tahsil Sakoli, District Bhandara, Maharashtra. His licence was renewed periodically until 2002. On 11 December 2002, he applied for renewal for the year 2003-04. The District Registrar, Bhandara, called upon him to submit a birth certificate, which revealed that he had already completed the age of sixty years. The petitioner was then shown a circular dated 21 June 2001 issued by the Inspector General and Stamp Controller, Maharashtra State, Pune, directing that licences of document writers who had completed sixty years of age should not be granted or renewed. Apprehending rejection of his renewal application, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the circular. The High Court issued rule and granted interim relief directing renewal of the licence pending the petition. The petitioner argued that the respondents had no power to fix an age limit for document writers, as neither the Registration Act, 1908 nor the Maharashtra Registration Manual contained any such provision, and that the circular violated Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The respondents contended that the circular was issued in public interest to ensure efficiency. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the circular was not supported by any statutory provision and was therefore ultra vires. The court also found that the circular infringed the fundamental right to practice any profession guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g). Consequently, the court quashed the circular and directed the respondents to renew the petitioner's licence. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Right to Practice Profession - Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India - Age Limit - The circular imposing an age limit of 60 years for document writers was challenged as violative of the fundamental right to practice any profession. The court held that the circular was not supported by any provision in the Registration Act, 1908 or the Maharashtra Registration Manual, and thus infringed Article 19(1)(g). (Paras 1-7)

B) Registration Act, 1908 - Document Writers - Licensing - Age Limit - The court examined the Registration Act, 1908 and the Maharashtra Registration Manual and found no provision empowering the authorities to prescribe an age limit for document writers. The circular was therefore ultra vires the parent statute. (Paras 5-7)

C) Administrative Law - Circular - Ultra Vires - The circular dated 21/6/2001 was struck down as being without legal authority and violative of fundamental rights. The court directed renewal of the petitioner's licence. (Paras 7-8)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the circular dated 21/6/2001 issued by the Inspector General and Stamp Controller, Maharashtra State, directing not to grant or renew licence to document writers who have completed sixty years of age, is valid and enforceable under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Maharashtra Registration Manual.

Final Decision

The writ petition is allowed. The circular dated 21/6/2001 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to renew the petitioner's licence as a document writer. No order as to costs.

Law Points

Right to practice profession under Article 19(1)(g)
absence of statutory authority for age limit
circular ultra vires the Registration Act
1908

Case Details

2006 LawText (BOM) (12) 99

WRIT PETITION NO. 4917 OF 2003

2006-12-28

V.C. Daga, A.B. Chaudhari

Mr. S. A. Jaiswal for petitioner, Mr. A. G. Mujumdar (A.G.P.) for respondents

Chaitram Chindhuji Wasnik

State of Maharashtra through Inspector General, Stamp Controller, Pune; Joint District Registrar, Bhandara; Sub-Registrar, Sakoli, Distt. Bhandara

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a circular imposing age limit for document writers.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of circular dated 21/6/2001 and direction to renew the petitioner's licence.

Filing Reason

The petitioner, a document writer aged over 60, was threatened with non-renewal of his licence due to a circular barring practice beyond 60 years.

Previous Decisions

The High Court on 12/12/2003 issued rule and granted interim relief directing renewal of licence pending the petition.

Issues

Whether the circular dated 21/6/2001 imposing an age limit of 60 years for document writers is valid under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Maharashtra Registration Manual. Whether the circular violates Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner: The respondents have no power to fix age limit; no provision in Registration Act or Manual; circular violates Article 19(1)(g). Relied on B.P. Sharma v. Union of India. Respondents: The circular was issued in public interest to ensure efficiency of document writers.

Ratio Decidendi

The circular imposing an age limit of 60 years for document writers is ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908 and the Maharashtra Registration Manual, as there is no statutory provision authorizing such a restriction. The circular also infringes the fundamental right to practice any profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner, the document writer has filed this petition challenging the direction contained in circular dated 21/6/2001 issued by the Inspector General and Stamp Controller, Maharashtra State, Pune; wherein the directions are issued not to grant or renew licence to the document writer, who has completed sixty years of his age. Mr. Jaiswal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that the respondents have no power to fix the age limit of the document writers. In his submission, there is no provision either under the Registration Act, 1908 or in the Maharashtra Registration Manual Part I & II to prevent the document writer from practicing beyond the age of sixty years.

Procedural History

The petitioner applied for renewal on 11/12/2002. The District Registrar sought birth certificate, which showed petitioner over 60. Petitioner was shown circular dated 21/6/2001. Petitioner filed writ petition on 12/12/2003; court issued rule and interim relief for renewal. Final hearing on 28/12/2006.